eBay

itemfinderco · ‎01-27-2022

Buyer does not receive item

Buyer gets refunded

Buyer goes and picks up item at customs after holding out on duties

Seller opens dispute showing the item was delivered

Ebay says NO, go ask the buyer for your money or item back

Is this really how this case should go?

donsdetour · ‎01-27-2022

This as well as other situations has forced me to think about the changes eBay has made.

For the record with the new payment system:

1: EBAY is the merchant of record for all purchases using MP.

This means the merchant is eBay and not the seller.

SO:you as the seller are now just a vendor to eBay as it goes.

Who is responsible in such situations legally???

dbfolks166mt · ‎01-27-2022

It would take a group of lawyers and a couple of law suits to figure all this out. EBay is a transaction facilitator and does not assume responsibility for any of the merchandise that flows through transactions that take place on their website. They will pretty much tell you this when a buyer opens a NAD case. A merchant is directly involved in the sale of an item either through retail or wholesale.

They are however the "merchant of record" when it comes to the financial transaction, tax collection and other items associated with the flow of funds. In the case of the tax collection it's because that is the way the court imposed it. In the case of the funding from the various payment entities they are probably setup and considered to be that because no CC company wants to deal with the addition of millions of individual sellers and millions of individual sales. It was probably part of the terms the CC companies levied on eBay when they elected to expand the payment types. PayPal was probably in a similar situation prior to the move to MP since they were/are the ones that deal directly with the CC companies and banks.

This could turn into a LONG drawn out discussion and potentially a book. 😀

flyingmvp · ‎01-27-2022

@dbfolks166mt wrote:
It would take a group of lawyers and a couple of law suits to figure all this out. EBay is a transaction facilitator and does not assume responsibility for any of the merchandise that flows through transactions that take place on their website. They will pretty much tell you this when a buyer opens a NAD case. A merchant is directly involved in the sale of an item either through retail or wholesale.
They are however the "merchant of record" when it comes to the financial transaction, tax collection and other items associated with the flow of funds. In the case of the tax collection it's because that is the way the court imposed it. In the case of the funding from the various payment entities they are probably setup and considered to be that because no CC company wants to deal with the addition of millions of individual sellers and millions of individual sales. It was probably part of the terms the CC companies levied on eBay when they elected to expand the payment types. PayPal was probably in a similar situation prior to the move to MP since they were/are the ones that deal directly with the CC companies and banks.
This could turn into a LONG drawn out discussion and potentially a book. 😀

It would be interesting,

Ebay shouldn't be allowed to wash their hands of the case by just telling sellers who follow Ebay's selling protocol it's their problem to deal with.

Especially when considering past experiences and evidence of Eaby doing the right thing morally and Ethically with sellers who have followed Ebay protocol and got reimbursed for their loss.