If a buyer pays for something (i.e., a service, which includes being charged for separate shipments, and the seller does not provide what has been paid for, the transaction(s) are eligible for INAD MBG coverage.
@varebelrose
Interesting statement, and rather logical thinking. In light of the new program where an upfront payment method is required for BIDDING or MAKING OFFERS where a combined invoice is no longer allowed, what sort of INAD claim would be involved? What specifically should be chosen from the dropdown menu?
For example and purposes of discussion, a buyer wins five auctions that are autopaid upon completion that had $10 shipping on each. In total the buyer is charged $100 in shipping (and taxes if applicable) for those ten items which the seller then puts in one box and ships for $6.50, and does nothing to refund the difference.
As far as I know, a seller has never been required to refund the difference in the past (i.e. multiple IPR purchases, etc), with the argument given that the old "buyer knew the cost in advance, and therefore the complaints are quite invalid" mantra. I have never been aware of any INAD that included "seller charged to much for shipping".
There already have been a few complaints by buyers of this happening on the BUYER BOARD with a similar example of multiple items being paid for separately via the autopay program and the items shipped on one box anyway. How should these victims be advised? Would they have to ship back ALL the items that came in that parcel? Would the seller be somehow 'on the hook' for the total payments made because they were shipped together?
I have often wondered (before this autopay business) what mobile/app users did when buying multiple items when they were never offered the opportunity anyway to "request total"? Too many people suggested that buyers were not intelligent enough to "use the cart" and "request a total", when in fact is was not an option for the buyer at all.
Your post just gave me more to think about.
