Contradiction in Ebay Buyer Money-Back Guarantee Policy: Ebay Please Fix This
I think there is a defect in the Ebay money-back buyer protection policy. I hope someone from Ebay is reading this.
Ebay money-back buyer guarantee policy says if product is defective buyer gets refund from seller or else from Ebay for purchase price, shipping cost, and return shipping (even if seller said "no refunds") unless the SELLER CLEARLY DISCLOSED THE DEFECT.
But this is contradicted by the Ebay description of what "used"means that is inserted into all for-sale listings: that "used" means "PRODUCT FULLY FUNCTIONS". There is no exception stated here about seller disclosing the defect.
Which one wins? Ebay: please eliminate this contradiction. Say the same thing please in both places. Can anyone here bring this to the attention of Ebay and get it to the attention of someone high up enough to fix it (customer service very unlikely to be able to help, so please do not suggest that-waste of time)???
safan80
·2 years agobennotbill
·2 years agoUnfortunately not every category has a “For parts or not working†specifics option.
In the end it matters not a jot. Even if something is correctly listed for parts or not working, and is described as broken and not working, a buyer can still successfully open an item not as described claim stating the reason being that the item is broken and not working.
albertabrightalberta
·2 years ago@audioresearch
I wonder if the item in question concerns your ended listing of a "ford 9" rear differential,complete with housing,axles,gears,etc."
The item is used (so per ebay should be fully functional) but in your description, you state that "one of the studs for the wheel lug nuts is broken, but these can be replaced easily and cheaply."
Although I don't know cars too well, it seems to me that a car with a wheel with a broken lug nut stud would not be "fully functional" and if someone were to drive it that way (without having it replaced), they could have a serious accident.
IMO, that item shouldn't have been listed as "used."
audioresearch
OP2 years agoYour guess that I had a problem with mbg as a seller of the car rear end is wrong. Nobody has ever made a claim against me using the mbg when I have been a seller or if they have, its been so very long ago I've forgotten it. In any event, for sure, that rear end never sold, I still have it.
But as to whether or not I should or should not have listed the rear end as "used" while I described a defect in my opinion is utterly ambiguous and so I can't tell what Ebay will do in the future or even what it should do or what I should do because of the contradictions in its language used in the mbg policy description and in the "used" description. They don't say the same thing. You overlook the fact that in the Ebay mbg policy it says, "Sellers are required to deliver the item as it was described in the listing. If the buyer receives the wrong item, or the item arrives broken, damaged, or faulty (and was not clearly described as such), they are entitled to return it for a refund, even if the seller doesn't offer returns)." I already posted this here. And this clearly states sellers are not liable for defects that they clearly disclose.
Again, the definition of "used" seems to say the opposite as best I can figure it out because it is poorly written. My complaint is that Ebay contradicts itself in its statements and also that some of those statements are poorly written all of which makes it so that I don't know for sure what to do.
But you make a good point about classifying items with defects as "parts-not working" in addition to describing the defects and in the future, anytime I'm a seller and I describe defects then just to protect myself I will try to remember to classify the item as "not working, parts only". I will explain in the listing that other than these defects, the item works fine and the only reason I'm saying "parts-not working" is because of the defects I described.
chevymontecarlo88
·2 years agoIn eBay terms, an item can only be marked as used if it is fully functional (it can have blemishes that don’t affect functionality.
Otherwise the item must be classified as “For parts/Not workingâ€.
Not sure if you’re the buyer or the seller in this situation, but if a buyer receives an item that was marked as “Used†but is non functional, even if the seller noted it in the listing, the buyer can file an item not as described dispute and easily win.
â˜ï¸The post above from @gone.c-33 should clarify.
If the item is received not as described, you will be covered. Used is not New. Used should function as it should be cosmetically not new. As is for parts states it will not work regardless if the listing has it does work. All of them would be covered under the Ebay MBG if received but not as described.
kathiec
·2 years agoThere are all kinds of defects that don't affect the functionality of a product. Could you please give more details on an MBG case eBay denied where a disclosed defect prevented the item from functioning? Because eBay decides MBG cases in the buyer's favor 99+% of the time.
audioresearch
OP2 years agoI've done a handful of MBG cases as the buyer and Ebay did in fact always refund my money if I told it that an item was defective. But as long as Ebay's language in its definition of "used" remains ambiguous, I can't rely on Ebay not suddenly changing what it does in the future and that is a worry since ambiguous/contradictory language makes it more likely Ebay could change its future behavior.
Elsewhere, in Ebay's posting of policies, it does say: "Sellers are required to deliver the item as it was described in the listing. If the buyer receives the wrong item, or the item arrives broken, damaged, or faulty (and was not clearly described as such), they are entitled to return it for a refund, even if the seller doesn't offer returns)."
But the point I am making is that at a mimimum the Ebay definition of what "used" means that appears in all Ebay for-sale listings should say the same thing as what it says about this in the policy for the money-back-guarantee so that people are not misled.
I can tell you that usually courts of law do not look kindly when anyone says one thing up front and says another thing that someone has to dig down to find. That is called "unfair and deceptive business practices" most or all states have a similar law (in my state, MA, it is in chapter 93a of the Massachusetts General Laws).
Best of all would be if Ebay changed the definition of "used" so that instead of saying "See the seller's listing for full details and a description of any imperfections" it said "Imperfections clearly stated in the seller's listing are not covered by the money-back-guarantee if and only if they describe imperfections that are not operational or functional in nature. Items where the seller has clearly described any operational or functional imperfections must be classified as "for parts-not working" and not as "used". Even best would be if Ebay put a special section in listings only to describe operational/functional defects and then automatically classified the item as "parts only-not working" anytime the seller entered anything in that section and stated that would happen close to where that section was displayed.
albertabrightalberta
·2 years ago@audioresearch
There's no ambiguity in the definition of used vs. MBG.
"Used" items are expected to work as designed but may not be in pristine "new" condition.
A seller cannot disclaim functionality of a used item simply by disclosing that it has some (or all) non-working parts.
I'm guessing that you were the seller and attempted to deny a NAD claim with the defense that your listing described non-functioning parts. Nope, it's not going to fly.
That reminds me of sellers who come here after selling a counterfeit item in which the listing had an authenticity disclaimer. They claim "but I described the item as a fake Louis Vuitton bag. Now the buyer is disputing because the item is fake."
house*of*paws
·2 years agoHi @audioresearch
If history is the best predictor of the future as they say … one of the things we CAN count on is that eBay WILL ‘change its mind’.
Another thing we can count on is contradictory statements among the numerous policies discussed in Help.
Your concern about cleaning up eBay’s definitions is admirable. The main problem is that it is highly unlikely to make any difference in how disputes are decided … but it IS likely create a new, unintended problem … as most changes do.
an-36344
·2 years agoYou lose credibility when you lie.
audioresearch
OP2 years agoYou are wrong. What I said is right. The "used" definition should read ..."is fully operational and functions intended except for any operational defects the seller clearly discloses" if indeed that is even what Ebay intends. Because this is ambiguous, I don't know what Ebay intends and that is what I'm complaining about.
Big deal that the seller can describe imperfections! So what? Because Ebay never says what happens if he does. I shouldn't have to read between the lines to figure out the meaning. The meaning should be clear and unambiguous.
The way this is all now written, I can reasonably take it to mean that the seller can disclose imperfections that are not operational and only those will not be guaranteed but operational defects are guaranteed even if the seller discloses them.
klhmdg
·2 years agoPlease dont be rude to other here. You may disagree but not be rude.
eBay is not here and will not read this post.
You can read it however you like but as has been pointed out eBay will 99% of the time refund the buyer, no matter if the item says it in the description or New or Used or the MBG.
eBay has so many more things that need fixing that this will not make the list.
Sometimes it is best to just let it go.
audioresearch
OP2 years agoGuy called me a liar, do you expect me to be polite to him?
gone.c-33
·2 years agoIn eBay terms, an item can only be marked as used if it is fully functional (it can have blemishes that don’t affect functionality.
Otherwise the item must be classified as “For parts/Not workingâ€.
Not sure if you’re the buyer or the seller in this situation, but if a buyer receives an item that was marked as “Used†but is non functional, even if the seller noted it in the listing, the buyer can file an item not as described dispute and easily win.