What's this guy trying to pull?

[bigdeals.etc]

Whenever a buyer messages you to request a cancellation (because it is passed the buyer cancellation request window), do you report them?

Because of the power the buyer has to affect a seller and their account, it is in every sellers interest to agree to cancel an order from a buyer anytime they request it and not ship the item out. But eBay obviously tells you it is your choice and you are not obligated to honor the request. I wonder if this is why many buyers believe the cancellation requests are actually cancellation demands. Anyway, I'm getting off topic here.

I just got a buyer (seasoned, 800+ feedback) who messaged me outside of their cancellation window and said "I need you to cancel the purchase. My water heater broke and I need all the money I can get." As an eBay seller, I honored the cancellation... as well as reported the buyer. Then I started to recall something and I did some digging. Apparently this same buyer bought a totally unrelated item from another one of my seller accounts 3 months ago. And they did the exact same thing. Same out of cancellation window, same message, same excuse, same verbiage. Back then I also honored the cancellation and also reported him.

I wonder how many other sellers has this buyer peddled that excuse to get cancellations. I highly doubt his water heater can break that often. Some of you might think I'm harsh for reporting him just because he wants to cancel outside of the eBay window. But for someone like me, he is what I would call an "inventory nightmare." Just as I would block buyers who return items frequently, I would also block ones who requests to cancel frequently.

[moms**art**window**]

“Common sense is most uncommon.”
― Samuel Clemmons (Mark Twain)

[earlyant-77]

---

@coffeebean832 wrote:

---

@fern*wood wrote:

---

I posted later in the thread wondering why sellers are even given the option to decline, since most won't know this and they are then stuck with the fees. 

@mam98031 

---

I think if a buyer has not yet paid then the cancellation should be automatically accepted.

If the buyer has paid already then the seller should be given the choice because it's possible they could have shipped already or are in the process of doing so at the post office.

---

And if paid, how much will the seller lose when Adyen doesn't give you back the transaction % and fees(per item with them)?

Does anyone think that PP will be returning fees after Adyen is in place for half of the sellers? Because Adyen said it's based on if the CC processor returns the fees. No way will PP give them back after fully integrated.

[7606dennis]

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@7606dennis wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@7606dennis wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@fern*wood wrote:

One thing I want to mention that was surprising to me, unless it has been changed, if a seller declines the official 1 hour cancellation request from the buyer, they cannot then open an unpaid item case.  

---

@fern*wood 

I've never heard this before.  It makes sense, I just hadn't heard it before.  Do you remember where you got that info?

---

Actually, it doesn't make sense to me.  If the seller doesn't deem to cancel the transaction and the buyer then doesn't pay, to take away the seller's ability to attempt to collect a debt lawfully owed him appears to be allowing the buyer to cancel the transaction since they would bear no consequences for their actions.

---

This is ONLY on a formal cancellation request that buyers can do within one hour of the purchase.  It does NOT count on other forms of cancellation requests.

---

Regardless, it is no longer a request if the seller is forced to accept it or not be allowed to attempt to collect what is owed them.  The buyer, in effect, would be cancelling the transaction themselves and the seller having no recourse.

---

You are saying things in a way that was not intended.  The seller is NOT "forced" to do anything.

I personally don't mind this policy / rule.  To me it is a non issue.  It is a good business decision to cancel the transaction if it hasn't been shipped.  Far less time and money spent trying to chase a buyer that has no intention to pay.  Or let them pay, I ship and then they return the item.  So for me, I'm absolutely FINE with this.

I would rather spend my time trying to get other rules that I really oppose changed rather than one like this that has very little impact on things.

---

I disagree.  As it stands the seller would be have no recourse if the buyer requests a cancellation within one hour.  If they are not permitted to file a UID to attempt collect what is owed them, there is no consequence to the buyer for not fulfilling the terms of the agreement they entered into when placing their bid.  So what other recourse does the seller now have?

If, as I believe a blue has stated, that the issue is a procedural one of not being able to have more than one request open at a time.  A seller should be permitted to deny the request clearing the first making it possible for the seller to file the UID.  If not, the buyer, once the request is denied by the seller, can merely go along with immunity and not pay.  Thus, although not being forced to accept the request, are left with no way to enforce their decision not to accept the buyer's request to cancel.

Of course, I suppose the seller can still exercise their right under auction laws and take the buyer to court but that isn't really economically feasible in most cases.  Or, probably the best option would be for sellers to avoid using the auction format and listing everything fixed price with immediate payment required.  However, then the seller would have eBay's GTC policy to contend with.

Frankly, I doubt that anything we say here is going to get eBay to change their rules unless a judge orders them to do so.  However, I'm of the opinion, that we should fight the fights that need to be fought rather than simply fight the ones we are sure of winning.   Of course, with eBay I don't believe there are any such things.

[mam98031]

---

@7606dennis wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@7606dennis wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@7606dennis wrote:

---

@mam98031 wrote:

---

@fern*wood wrote:

One thing I want to mention that was surprising to me, unless it has been changed, if a seller declines the official 1 hour cancellation request from the buyer, they cannot then open an unpaid item case.  

---

@fern*wood 

I've never heard this before.  It makes sense, I just hadn't heard it before.  Do you remember where you got that info?

---

Actually, it doesn't make sense to me.  If the seller doesn't deem to cancel the transaction and the buyer then doesn't pay, to take away the seller's ability to attempt to collect a debt lawfully owed him appears to be allowing the buyer to cancel the transaction since they would bear no consequences for their actions.

---

This is ONLY on a formal cancellation request that buyers can do within one hour of the purchase.  It does NOT count on other forms of cancellation requests.

---

Regardless, it is no longer a request if the seller is forced to accept it or not be allowed to attempt to collect what is owed them.  The buyer, in effect, would be cancelling the transaction themselves and the seller having no recourse.

---

You are saying things in a way that was not intended.  The seller is NOT "forced" to do anything.

I personally don't mind this policy / rule.  To me it is a non issue.  It is a good business decision to cancel the transaction if it hasn't been shipped.  Far less time and money spent trying to chase a buyer that has no intention to pay.  Or let them pay, I ship and then they return the item.  So for me, I'm absolutely FINE with this.

I would rather spend my time trying to get other rules that I really oppose changed rather than one like this that has very little impact on things.

---

I disagree.  As it stands the seller would be have no recourse if the buyer requests a cancellation within one hour.  If they are not permitted to file a UID to attempt collect what is owed them, there is no consequence to the buyer for not fulfilling the terms of the agreement they entered into when placing their bid.  So what other recourse does the seller now have?

If, as I believe a blue has stated, that the issue is a procedural one of not being able to have more than one request open at a time.  A seller should be permitted to deny the request clearing the first making it possible for the seller to file the UID.  If not, the buyer, once the request is denied by the seller, can merely go along with immunity and not pay.  Thus, although not being forced to accept the request, are left with no way to enforce their decision not to accept the buyer's request to cancel.

Of course, I suppose the seller can still exercise their right under auction laws and take the buyer to court but that isn't really economically feasible in most cases.  Or, probably the best option would be for sellers to avoid using the auction format and listing everything fixed price with immediate payment required.  However, then the seller would have eBay's GTC policy to contend with.

Frankly, I doubt that anything we say here is going to get eBay to change their rules unless a judge orders them to do so.  However, I'm of the opinion, that we should fight the fights that need to be fought rather than simply fight the ones we are sure of winning.   Of course, with eBay I don't believe there are any such things.

---

No problem.  We just disagree.  I think there are bigger problems on Ebay that need our attention.  This one is just a very small issue that really I don't see as an issue.  I know we disagree and you are welcome to try and force the buyer into a transaction that they have decided they don't want or need.  That is your choice to make.  I hope it all works out for you.  I wouldn't do it as it is highly likely to cost me more money and time, not to mention damaged FB.  But we each and decide for ourselves what is right for us.

You stated "However, I'm of the opinion, that we should fight the fights that need to be fought rather than simply fight the ones we are sure of winning."  Just so we are clear.  That isn't what I said or even implied.  I just want that to be crystal clear, that is your statement, NOT MINE.