mam98031 • Volunteer Community Member • Buyer/Seller since 1999
@muttlymob wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:Why, it is the way the rules are written. She is right. According to the Ebay rules she would not be responsible for the item not being received. Tracking would show delivered.
What you say is true only for Item Not Received claims.
eBay (and PayPal) also offers buyer protection from Item Not as Described. If a package is damaged in shipping and the item falls out, thus the buyer receives an empty package, the seller is indeed responsible for the item not being received. Unless the listing was for an empty package.
Tracking showing delivered means nothing in a SNAD case.
The fact that the buyer did receive something (an empty envelope) does not absolve the seller from responsibility for the buyer not receiving all of what she paid for.
Yes, thank you. The OP was discussing an INR and you are correct. I appreciate your observations. You are correct, a SNAD would have different rules to comply with. But we were discussing that and my comment had nothing to do with a SNAD.
@turquoisetulips wrote:According to the Ebay rules she would not be responsible for the item not being received. Tracking would show delivered. mam 98031
I've always believed that is the way it's supposed to be as well . There would be no point in sellers paying extra for a tracking number if it didn't protect them from dishonest buyers . There simply must be some protection for sellers too or we might all just give it up. Tulips
Yes you are absolutely correct. That is how the rules read. There is just a little bit of confusion on the thread about what comments pertain to what.
The OP was talking about an INR [the buyer did NOT file one, or any claim for that matter]. The OP's comments and my comments to her were ALWAYS about and INR.
Other posters decided to insert SNAD into the conversation and made it appear that the OP and I didn't know what we were talking about. And as any sellers knows, INRs and SNADs are not the same thing nor do they have the same rules.
That is why some posters are confused and feel the need so school some of us on the rules of a SNAD when that wasn't what was being discussed in the first place.
@turquoisetulips wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@turquoisetulips wrote:According to the Ebay rules she would not be responsible for the item not being received. Tracking would show delivered. mam 98031
I've always believed that is the way it's supposed to be as well . There would be no point in sellers paying extra for a tracking number if it didn't protect them from dishonest buyers . There simply must be some protection for sellers too or we might all just give it up. Tulips
Yes you are absolutely correct. That is how the rules read. There is just a little bit of confusion on the thread about what comments pertain to what.
The OP was talking about an INR [the buyer did NOT file one, or any claim for that matter]. The OP's comments and my comments to her were ALWAYS about and INR.
Other posters decided to insert SNAD into the conversation and made it appear that the OP and I didn't know what we were talking about. And as any sellers knows, INRs and SNADs are not the same thing nor do they have the same rules.
That is why some posters are confused and feel the need so school some of us on the rules of a SNAD when that wasn't what was being discussed in the first place.
Sounds a lot like that game we used to play called '' telephone '' . You start with a short story whisper it into the ear of the person sitting next to you and then it's passed all the way down to the end of the people that way . Then the last person tells the story out loud and the story was always completely different than the original that was written down at the beginning . Human nature I guess lol ... Tulips
EXACTLY !!! GREAT story.
@myangelandmyprincess wrote:
@mam98031 wrote:
@turquoisetulips wrote:According to the Ebay rules she would not be responsible for the item not being received. Tracking would show delivered. mam 98031
I've always believed that is the way it's supposed to be as well . There would be no point in sellers paying extra for a tracking number if it didn't protect them from dishonest buyers . There simply must be some protection for sellers too or we might all just give it up. Tulips
Yes you are absolutely correct. That is how the rules read. There is just a little bit of confusion on the thread about what comments pertain to what.
The OP was talking about an INR [the buyer did NOT file one, or any claim for that matter]. The OP's comments and my comments to her were ALWAYS about and INR.
Other posters decided to insert SNAD into the conversation and made it appear that the OP and I didn't know what we were talking about. And as any sellers knows, INRs and SNADs are not the same thing nor do they have the same rules.
That is why some posters are confused and feel the need so school some of us on the rules of a SNAD when that wasn't what was being discussed in the first place.
Snad was brought up because it’s what would apply in make the seller responsible for the loss. It makes no sense to ignore that fact and just talk about they aren’t responsible for INR case. It was the wrong kind of case to be talking about for the situation.
I wasn't ignoring it. Some posters were trying to make my comments specifically about an INR to be about a SNAD. There is a difference.
I don't necessarily disagree that the buyer could file a SNAD, however it wouldn't matter if they did or not as the OP was willing to take care of them from the moment they got the notification from the buyer that there was a problem. So with or without a claim. A claim of any kind, the buyer is going to be fine because the seller has ALWAYS planned to take care of them.
So the back and forth on this is simply an exercise, nothing more.
@muttlymob wrote:
@turquoisetulips wrote:The fact that the buyer did receive something (an empty envelope) does not absolve the seller from responsibility for the buyer not receiving all of what she paid for. motleymob
Absolutely 100% correct... no blue needed for confirmation- jeannicho
When or if ever it becomes a well known fact that proof of delivery via a tracking number is no longer valid in protecting sellers then I can imagine that eventually quite a few will need to throw in the towel . Tulips
This IS an actual policy. It's called the Money Back Guarantee. And before that it was eBay's Buyer Protection Policy.
It is nothing new. A tracking number was never valid in protecting a seller against a Significantly Not As Described claim. Just a guess but I think it is already a well-known fact that receiving an empty package IS a SNAD case.
When tracking shows delivery (or Signature Confirmation if the value is high enough) an Item Not Received claim is off the table.
But a SNAD is not. Receiving a package is not the same as receiving the item the buyer paid for. If not then more sellers would be intentionally sending empty packages and telling buyers to pound sand when they complain.
Whether the package was sent empty intentionally or it was damaged along the way and the item lost, doesn't matter. Both are SNAD. Always have been as long as there has been a Buyer Protection Policy.
Just so we are clear here. Not a single soul on this thread has said that a delivery scan on tracking will protect a seller from a SNAD. NO ONE said that.
When it was stated, the discussion was pertaining to an INR.
