mbassoc2003 wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:
eBay is in the wrong here for not supporting sellers in implementing the law as written.

I think there is a easy answer to why they are doing what they are doing.. money.. it takes time and money to contact, email, get proof etc when they they can just take the easy cheep path.. it would cost them more money to look after the sellers than they make from it

Brette:)

Skullhammer wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:Correct me if mistaken, but this sounds more like a problem with the laws in the U.K. and (soon the) E.U, rather can eBay.
The difference being is that while PayPal’s payment paradigm gave a little more control to the sellers by making funds immediately available (which helped assuage the pain from these laws), eBay’s payment paradigm does not.

The problem as I see it is that eBay took it upon themselves to extend/rewrite the scope of the law to encompass returning goods that the buyer had accidentally damaged, or intentionally damaged. The seller cannot sue the buyer privately unless the value of the exceeds £350. Surely if eBay refuses to enforce the laws of a country in regard to the return of the item purchased, the problem is with eBay refusing to enforce the law, not the law itself?

Skullhammer wrote in Ebay about to shoot itself again:
I didn’t realize that, and that’s definitely a problem.  How did PayPal help with this?  Are the buyer/seller policies so different between eBay and PayPal?

With Paypal, certainly when I was selling, you had a dispute mechanism where you could provide PayPal with photos of the condition of the item and how it was packaged, and evidence of receipt at the buyer end, and then photos of the item as it was returned and ask for coverage under the Seller Protection, and they would pay out. Whether they paid both parties and sucked it up themselves, or whether they went to the buyer and said, look, the item you returned to the buyer was used and/or damaged and we have photos proving it wasn't shipped that way, and and you offer no proof of damage in transit (photos of package received), so you don't get your money back, I don't know. And of course damage in transit from the seller to the buyer is covered by the seller insuring the shipment, the buyer providing photos and the damage and the seller making a claim against the shipping company.

And if the buyer then did a chargeback on their credit card, PayPal would just terminate their account. Somehow I don't see eBay dealing with things that way, and the evidence over the past 18 months or so is that a lot of sellers get stung buy buyers who have buyer's remorse and want partial refunds to help ease their regret. Something that didn't happen previously prior to the change in UK Law. I realise the change in the law is the instigating factor, but at the very least I would expect a company controlling every aspect of your retail experience to implement the law in its entirety, and not be selective about what bits it will and what bits it will not implement.

From a business point of view, it makes sense to take complete control over everything and dictate the business practices of your users, and as eBay says, if you can't factor in shrinkage into your business model, then you either adapt and survive or you withdraw from the market in favour of others who will inflate the prices to accommodate such shrinkage. That is why prices are higher on Amazon than on eBay - the sellers know they have to pay for all returns, losses and failed transactions and price them into their business model. If buyers won't pay the extra they can buy from someone else.