Global Shipping Damaged item Shipping Problem

[gjlutz]

I sent an item through global shipping and it was damaged during transit.  Usually  I have had no problem with getting reimbursed in the past for this, until now....  Buyer filed through Paypal as "not as described" instead of filing through Ebay, and because of this it has been a nightmare!  It has been 2 weeks, and now Paypal is saying another month to look into this??? My $200 in funds is being held, and I've called them twice with no luck.  They informed me that it should have gone through Ebay, (which I'm  aware of ), instead of them, but now there is nothing they can do about it.  My question is;  Is there a chance this will go wrong for me?  Why should it be different how they treat the case just because its Paypay and not Ebay?  I packed item extremely well and absolutely do not feel that this should be on me, nor do I feel the buyer should lose either.  If Global shipping is going to be so difficult to use, then I will not be using them anymore, not worth the risk.

[agent006140]

---

@missjen831 wrote:

---

@agent006140 wrote:

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

---

You don’t understand how the GSP works. The seller does NOT approach the GSP and ask them to file a claim with their insurance. Not how it works.

---

someone has to notify GSP that the shipment arrived damaged,if not the seller,then it should be Ebay.

GSP has insurance policy to cover damages or theft.

The proper way to do this is the seller refund the buyer and notify GSP,GSP will refund the seller and then file claim with its insurer.

just because the buyer did not file INAD with Ebay does not mean GSP is out of the loop.

[ted_200]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

---

PayPal is a party to the GSP agreement, they are mandated as the only payment method acceptable for the GSP, they are no more a dis-interested outside party to this than PB would be. 

eBay needs to make their GSP partners perform.  The seller here should have never even been involved in any of this, never mind had his payment taken.

[missjen831]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

---

@missjen831 wrote:

---

@agent006140 wrote:

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

---

You don’t understand how the GSP works. The seller does NOT approach the GSP and ask them to file a claim with their insurance. Not how it works.

---

The proper way to do this is the seller refund the buyer and notify GSP,GSP will refund the seller and then file claim with its insurer.

just because the buyer did not file INAD with Ebay does not mean GSP is out of the loop.

---

That is NOT the proper way to do it. Stop spreading patently false information. The gsp is notified of the damage when the buyer files the request against the seller. The same when the buyer files with PayPal. It is not the sellers responsibility to notify the GSP so they can file an insurance claim. There is a specific procedure the seller must follow. They should NOT refund the buyer and then contact the GSP. That is not how it works.

[ted_200]

The proper way to do this is the seller refund the buyer and notify GSP.

No.

And the buyer has already been refunded, they filed and won a credit card chargeback, and PayPal reversed the payment to the seller. 

[missjen831]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

---

@missjen831 wrote:

---

@agent006140 wrote:

Paypal doesnot have to know Ebay sales policy or any site which uses Paypal as payment processor,many merchants use Paypal,how do you expect Paypal to learn all the arrangements they made with their sellers or buyers/

Seller should approach GSP and ask them to file claim with their insurer.

---

You don’t understand how the GSP works. The seller does NOT approach the GSP and ask them to file a claim with their insurance. Not how it works.

---

someone has to notify GSP that the shipment arrived damaged,if not the seller,then it should be Ebay.

GSP has insurance policy to cover damages or theft.

The proper way to do this is the seller refund the buyer and notify GSP,GSP will refund the seller and then file claim with its insurer.

just because the buyer did not file INAD with Ebay does not mean GSP is out of the loop.

---

None of that is the seller problem or responsibility. Again the seller needs to follow the correct procedure and that means they do not refund the buyer. 

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@ted_200 wrote:

We can all wander blindly around global sites, pick through FAQ's, try to separate propaganda from TOS, all day.  It doesn't change a couple of FACTS.

1.  There are statements about eBay MBG and PayPal PP here and there, that say the seller would not be responsible for refunding.  That's nice, but since that didn't happen here, all those statements are irrelevant.

2.  There are other statements, which are absolute and stated without conditions, that say the seller's risk of loss ends at the GSP center, and that if they lose it or break it, they have you covered.   I already posted those in bright red. 

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 1. is the only protection the seller has.

There is nothing that anyone can find, including Trinton and myself, that suggests 2.  is limited to certain types of claims, or is conditional in any way shape or form. 

eBay is well-versed in inserting weasel words (may, could, at our discresion, in some cases, excluding, limited to, *, might, et al) into TOS and agreements, and they are not there. 

They owe the OP a refund. 

---

1. Completely applies because it specifies when the seller is protected.   It leads into it’s just providing more info than just your number 2 statements.   Your number 2 statements tell you you’re covered. The number 1 statements say when you’re covered.  Especially since there is never any statements about covering a seller in the even of the buyer filing with a financial institution.  It ONLY ever mentions covering the seller on eBay or PayPal cases.    

[myangelandmyprincess]

Don’t get me wrong I totally think eBay should be responsible. That’s my opinion it shouldn’t be any different just because the buyer filed with the C.C.   eBay should reimburse the seller and then hold the gsp responsible for the damage.   

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

[missjen831]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

Don’t get me wrong I totally think eBay should be responsible. That’s my opinion it shouldn’t be any different just because the buyer filed with the C.C.   eBay should reimburse the seller and then hold the gsp responsible for the damage.   

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

---

This.

i also think they need to state somewhere in the rules that the seller is not covered if the buyer files a chargeback (which I think is wrong). The way the policy reads, the seller is covered and the GSP is responsible. It doesn’t say oops sorry you aren’t covered in the event the buyer files a chargeback. 

[ted_200]

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

That's what Trinton says, but I have yet to see it.  Can you show it to me?  Your prior post isn't supported by the actual text, which I've already posted here. 

[lovtaco0]

---

@agent006140 wrote:

---

@lovtaco0 wrote:

@Anonymous- Is it possible for the buyer to cancel the chargeback and instead initiate a regular PayPal SNAD case? Could this be an option for the OP to work with the buyer, explain the 3rd party insurance and try to get cooperation?

---

buyer can cancel the chargeback or just open a case with paypal,as soon as he does that ,his cc issuer will close his chargeback,then it becomes a Paypal case.if buyer has made 2 payments,one to seller and one to EBAY/GSP,chances are he will file 2 chargebacks,not one.

seller should really understand GSP better before using its service.

---

Not true. Did you see the eBay reply to that post?

https://community.ebay.com/t5/Selling/Global-Shipping-Damaged-item-Shipping-Problem/m-p/28435912#M1198944

"once a buyer has pursued a chargeback they would no longer be able to open a dispute through either PayPal or eBay..."

[myangelandmyprincess]

---

@ted_200 wrote:

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

That's what Trinton says, but I have yet to see it.  Can you show it to me?  Your prior post isn't supported by the actual text, which I've already posted here. 

---

It supported in that it says when a seller is protected.  While it doesn’t say it in all spots it’s meant to be understood that since it says it one area it applies that way always.  And they don’t have to say what isn’t covered. 

And ill say this is what I hate about contract law.  It’s not cut and dry it’s basically up to a court on how things are written if they will hold up.  Which is why I don’t say that eBay is totally covered just that they have a strong legal argument.  

[marnotom!]

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

---

@ted_200 wrote:

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

That's what Trinton says, but I have yet to see it.  Can you show it to me?  Your prior post isn't supported by the actual text, which I've already posted here. 

---

It supported in that it says when a seller is protected.  While it doesn’t say it in all spots it’s meant to be understood that since it says it one area it applies that way always.  And they don’t have to say what isn’t covered. 

And ill say this is what I hate about contract law.  It’s not cut and dry it’s basically up to a court on how things are written if they will hold up.  Which is why I don’t say that eBay is totally covered just that they have a strong legal argument.  

---

At this point, I really don't know what pages are being referred to here.  Remember, I'm a Canadian eBay user.  I only have one eBay page I really need to refer to when I need to see the Global Shipping Program's terms and conditions as they pertain to me, a Canadian buyer.  I don't have to read "FAQ" pages or "overview" or "summary" pages that may be terms and conditions in disguise.

All I'm coming away with at this point are that references to the eBay Money Back Guarantee and PayPal's Purchase Protection program on the .com site with regards to the GSP are explanations of how a buyer may seek redress in the event that an item forwarded through the program gets damaged or goes missing in transit.

All I've seen seen from the information on the site as it currently exists about the seller's role in a GSP transaction that goes awry is that the seller is not liable for loss or damage for a GSP item unless they mess things up on their end, and examples of this are provided.

From what I can see from the information on the site as it currently exists, the seller has no need for "protection" through any scheme or program of eBay's or PayPal's once a GSP item is accepted at the Global Shipping Center in Kentucky because Pitney Bowes has assumed responsibility for the item's safe passage.  The risk has been transferred.  No "protection" is required for the seller because they have no need for it.

I feel I'm missing something here, either supporting or refuting my arguments.

[d-k_treasures]

---

@missjen831 wrote:

---

@myangelandmyprincess wrote:

Don’t get me wrong I totally think eBay should be responsible. That’s my opinion it shouldn’t be any different just because the buyer filed with the C.C.   eBay should reimburse the seller and then hold the gsp responsible for the damage.   

However with the way it’s worded they have a solid legal argument not to do so 

---

This.

i also think they need to state somewhere in the rules that the seller is not covered if the buyer files a chargeback (which I think is wrong). The way the policy reads, the seller is covered and the GSP is responsible. It doesn’t say oops sorry you aren’t covered in the event the buyer files a chargeback. 

---

Exactly. If it did(and now we know they won't), what seller would sign up for the GSP? Especially once this one makes it into a youtube video?

[bubbleman2010]

I bet OP gets reinbursed......

[myangelandmyprincess]

Besides making your items available worldwide, there are a number of benefits to using the Global Shipping Program:

• If an item is lost or broken during international shipping, eBay Money Back Guarantee cases will be resolved in your favour, and your seller performance standards won’t be affected

https://www.ebay.com/help/global-shipping-program/default/global-shipping-program?id=4646&st=3&pos=1...