posted on September 22, 2000 05:55:44 PM
I'll have to admit that I've been the bad guy at least once that I can remember. I bid on someone's "close-out" stock, and got an interesting information-CD for about $3.
Since PayPal came along, I try to pay (and receive payment) through them. It makes for easy record-keeping, as I can just print out my HISTORY at the end of the week.
I was very interested in the item I won, and kept waiting for it to show up. When I emailed the seller about it, she said she didn't THINK she had received payment, and if I hadn't received the item, then I probably hadn't paid. Obviously a very organized person here!
To shorten a long story, I didn't find any record of having paid for it, so I wrote her another note telling her PayPal was coming through...and I received a reply a moment later telling me she had just mailed my item, as she was going to be gone for a week or so, and she trusted me for the money...Hmmm!
I got my CD two days later, and the information was better than her ad promised...I've really been making money with this one...reproducing and selling off the information a bit at a time.
posted on September 23, 2000 12:22:51 AM
mballi - I took your advice and read the post that started this thread. You state that the auction ended 9/4/2000. And you received your first email 9/8/2000 after sending a second email. Well since 9/4/2000 was Labor Day which is a Federal Holiday in the United States of America. Under ebay's rules there is a 3 business day contact period. Well since you received contact on day 4 after a second email. I will assume that you sent the second email on 9/7/2000. So your buyer is within normal transaction guidelines. Now you got payment on 9/19/2000 and filed NPB on 9/19/2000.
Your entire TOS and 10 day policy is out of line with ebay's policies. Since Saturday is a Postal Day. I decided to count them in a 10 day count, since Sunday isn't I did not. The 3 day contact period ended 9/7/2000, your ten days start 9/8/2000, excepting Sundays which brings us to 9/19/2000. Which is day 10, if you filed for NPB on 9/19/2000 as you state you did not give 10 days. You should have filed for NPB on 9/20/2000. We had a great thread on those 10 day policies and if you are considering a neutral for that and the time shows regardless of the [b]Postmark the transaction followed your TOS. You are being a little rash IMHO.
I hope the guy negs you in return if you leave that for feedback maybe a couple of those will wake you up to reality.
posted on September 23, 2000 12:50:51 AM
QUOTE
I presume that payment for my auction is NOT the number one priority in their lives - but, I realize there are thousands of
cyberauctioneers who are regularly scaring off online purchases by their very weird TOS and their insistence to *punish*
paying customers with negative feedbacks, because these humans do not happen to follow the obsessive-compulsive
peculiarities of such control freaks.
END QUOTE
God that is soooooo true!!!!
I think I will print it out and keep it on my ebay folder, because if I get nuts on bidders I'll know it's time to fold.
You know what is VERY funny...I recently had a bidder, wonderful feedback rating (700+) win one of my auctions. I wait for the payment, then finally I decided to email the high bidder. (I try to hold out as long as possible.)
It turned out that she has given the payment to her son and he had left it sitting in his car also! (I don't know the exact period of time.)
This very nice bidder sent the payment out immediatly and it arrived shortly after. =)
I sure hope that she enjoys her shoes! =)
dawlsgrl only here
posted on September 23, 2000 05:48:51 AM
dawlsgrl - Kids eh! They are even less "hurry up and pay me or else" minded than some of us older folks. My two boys seem to be stuck in the Jamacian (sp) mindset of "Don't worry ... Soon Come Man". Not a bad mindset to have when you do on line auctioning. I only wish some other sellers could relax and enjoy ...
posted on September 23, 2000 06:59:46 AM
If the seller said "will send your item on the 8th"........ Customer received it on the 21st and saw it was postmarked the 19th!
What kind of feedback do you feel that customer would leave?
posted on September 23, 2000 07:11:58 AM
networker67
You need to read my thread again. I ASK my bidders to contact me when they receive my email and pay promptly in order that THEY may get their product promptly. What is wrong with that? Bidders who fail to respond promptly are late payers (beyond 14 days) most of the time. I was not outside eBay policy because I waited until Mon, 18 Sep 2000 before filing an NPB alert. That's 14 days. He sent payment the following day and I got it 9/21--not 9/19.
posted on September 23, 2000 07:37:12 AM
RB: "It would depend on the reason (the original poster has clerverly avoided stating this here!)"
Could you please tell me what you mean? What kind of a reason? and what did you feel this seller left out?
Just a note....I was trying to give the same scenario as the (seller) originator did ......only reversed it to be a customers scenario. The facts would stay the same.
posted on September 23, 2000 07:44:00 AM
RB
"the original poster has clerverly avoided stating this here"
It wasn't the topic.
But since you like to turn this thread into a not so subtle ad hominem attack on me, I'll answer with: look at my feedback. I ship next business day 99.9% of the time, therefore the question is not only irrelevant, but your comment is less than appropriate. My service is not in question here, and even if it was, it speaks for itself.
posted on September 23, 2000 08:02:05 AM
psalms139
Even though this a reverse situation from my topic, I would defintely not want to do business with someone who does not honor their word.
I bought a lot before I became a seller. I also work for a business that is 60 years old and still has their original client. Good customer service depends upon people working in a mutually trustworthy manner.
A lie is bad enough and cannot be condoned, but a transparent one erodes trust almost instantly and shows a real lack of respect.
posted on September 23, 2000 08:02:38 AM
psalms139 - the part that appears to be missing is the communication from the buyer to the seller AFTER the seller's tirade, if there was any. We have no idea of the reason why the cheque and letter were dated a week or two earlier than the postmark. Some of us have suggested that the letter may have been misplaced by USPS, and others (me included) have suggested that it may have placed in the hands of someone else to mail it, and that person forgot to mail it.
Here's a cut from my earlier post:
mballai ... based on your info, it doesn't appear to me that this buyer was trying to dodge his/her error. Rather, it appears as though s/he honestly thought the cheque and letter had been mailed on the day they were dated. Is there, perhaps, something that you have left out here? As it stands right now, it doesn't look like anyone 'lied' to you. I cannot feel sorry for you, nor would I recommend a neutral or a negative FB. If you have a problem with that, why not post no FB at all?
posted on September 23, 2000 08:30:32 AM
If I may jump in here with a few comments.
First I must state that it is entirely possible for a letter to languish in a post office without a postmark. It happened to me with a CC payment. It was not found until I filed a complaint. The Postmaster's explanation was that it had somehow fallen behind a table.
My CC Co. was no more forgiving than mballai, even though I sent them a copy of the PM's letter.
What I cannot understand is why mballai is so upset. It actually seems as though mballai is more upset now than at the original post.
The payment was received. Even if the party may not entirely been forthcoming, the wait did not include going through the full process.
As for Mr. Clinton's faux pas, I think that was a bit more serious than mballai's buyer. If mballai has never EVER told an untruth, he is to be commended. We all tell little white ones for a variety of reasons.
He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
I vote with the majority here. Lighten up. Life is too short. Don't sweat the small stuff.
[ edited by PaperMemories on Sep 23, 2000 08:37 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 08:42:39 AM
RB: I agree ...we do not know why there was a delay in the shipping for sure.....but we do know that the postmark did not match what the customer said & the check date.
I know if I were the customer and I had sent the check on the 8th and hadn't received my item by the 21st......I would have written an inquiry to the seller.
Would those who posted a defense for the customer.... give the same defense for the seller if the roles were reversed?
I wish people on this board wouldn't demean another just to get their point of view across.
Maybe you need a line in your TOS saying you don't sell to liars.
Perhaps the better idea is go to the bookstore this afternoon and get Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people". Pay special attention to the section on allowing people to save face.
posted on September 23, 2000 08:49:49 AM
psalms139: The situations aren't exactly the same. For one, inquiring is different than calling someone a liar (Although I do commend mballai for not emailing back his accusations-the best emails are sometimes the ones not sent)
Second, the buyer/seller relationship is not an equal one. The buyer has the gold, so they make the rules. If a seller can't deal with a person lying to them, maybe this is the wrong business for them.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:04:10 AM
yankee98champs:
"How to win friends and influence people".
Was just wondering, Have you read that book?
"If a seller can't deal with a person lying to them, maybe this is the wrong business for them."
I am sorry that you feel a seller needs to accept a customer that lies and because they feel that is not acceptable they should get out of the business. No one is perfect but to say we should accept this behavior does not sound like it is a good business practice or acceptable way of life to me.
I have to leave now.. Hope everyone will have a great day!
There was no "tirade" (nice try again at swiping at me...again without substantiation by your own admission). The guy stated that he sent it on 9/8. "it was mailed out on September 8." and "...having sent the check out ten days ago." He alone is responsible for his own statements and actions. There was no further clarification on his part as to him delegating the mailing or perhaps forgetting to mail it. I have plenty of bidders who tell me this or that happened. Nothing like that here.
I am looking at the evidence, not conjecture. If the guy was merely guilty of negligence, he certainly failed to communicate it.
I do not give positive feedback to late payers unless they are straight with me. I still haven't decided what to do, but he certainly won't get a positive.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:14:36 AM
psalms139: I live in reality. Everyone has told a lie, or had an omission of truth sometime or another.
Yes, I have read Dale Carnegie's book. I live it everyday in my customer service job. If a customer lies to me (and they do), I don't see it as a personal affront. It's not personal. I'm also NOT responsible for my customer's salvation. My responsibility is to get the money owed to me, and perform on those services that have been paid for.
In other words, sellers, if you can't deal with someone lying to you, GROW UP, or get out of the business world.
Another thing, psalms139. No it isn't an acceptable business practice to lie. The customer isn't the one in business, though.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:17:46 AM
mballai: I am looking at the evidence, not conjecture. If the guy was merely guilty of negligence, he certainly failed to communicate it.
Well, see, that's the problem right there. The buyer didn't know you were having a trial. He/she maybe just thought that they were paying for an auction.
posted on September 23, 2000 09:27:25 AM
mballai - firstly, please, I mean no disrespect to you
I have no idea who you are on eBay or what you sell. And again, with no disrepect intended, the fact that you have a high positive FB means nothing to me.
The point that I, and several others have tried to make, and in response to your first post, is that a negative or a neutral FB for this auction isn't really warranted. Further, I believe you made a major jump to a conclusion when you called your buyer a liar.
Did you contact that person and ask them why the delay between writing the cheque and mailing it?
Did that person respond? If so, what did s/he say?
If I may suggest, why not invite your buyer to this thread so we can hear his/her reason for delaying the posting of his/her payment. You may find that s/he is not a liar after all ...
posted on September 23, 2000 09:36:09 AM
yankee98champs
Business is based on trust. I cut people slack all the time...I'm not perfect either. I do expect that my customers will be honest with me so that we can deal with whatever problem arises. I do not consider maturity a sign that one accepts a lack of integrity as acceptable. People should be adult enough to act responsibly and admit their human failings when it affects someone else. There's no shame in that.
Saving face? From what. It certainly isn't worth losing positive feedback or risking a negative.
posted on September 23, 2000 10:13:09 AM
yankee98champs and RB
This is not a trial for the bidder nor the seller. I merely pointed to the lack of credibility to a bidder's (reasserted)statement of payment date and that it makes for a particularly crummy transaction because it is at odds with the postmark date as well as being an actual late payment.
I'm glad this doesn't happen very often. Thanks to all who participated.
posted on September 23, 2000 10:28:52 AM
mballai - I will stick to the issue and assume you were having a bad a day not ebay related when you started this thread. The auction ended on a federal holiday. This is by your initial thread since September 4 was Labor Day. Your payment is postmarked September 19, again by your own admission. You allow 14 days again by your own admission. Since you seem unwilling to acknowledge Holiday's and Sunday's, I won't either.
14 days from September 4 is September 18, your payment is postmarked one day later. It arrived on September 21. Since postmarks are contractually valid for obligation of contractual matters under both Uniform Commercial Code, FASB Rulings, and The Tax Code. Your payment is postmarked one day later than your TOS. So you are going to leave a neutral or negative because it wasn't mailed on the 8th?
Get professional here for a minute, we are under your TOS talking about One Day. It makes no difference what the buyer said about mailing September 8, he didn't have to mail it September 8 to be within your TOS. Now since it is very possible he/she mailed it September 18 after last pickup by the Post Office one day slack is acceptable. If you choose not to leave feedback over one day that is your choice. But if you are making this an ethic/moral issue over mailing it on September 8, you have no position to debate from because if it was mailed September 8, you would get it early. Since it wasn't you got it one day late. Regardless of what a buyer says he is only bound by your TOS. Funny thing about many my TOS says sellers they apparently have no concept of what their TOS actually says as it relates to the calendar and the business cycle. Take this case for instance. Auction ends on a holiday, not a business day for anyone. Buyer since that was a holiday weekend may or may not have been away for the holiday. So that may or may not explain the email delay. But the email was replied to on September 8. This seller sent at least two emails during the initial contact period. So we start the payment due count from the first business day after the contact period. Which in this case is September 8. It is post marked ONE DAY after the TOS terms and we have a seller crying foul.
This is another case in support of my statement. In My Humble Opinion, Prior To ebay, The Greatest Entreprenuial Endeavor of the Average ebay seller was running a lemonade stand at age 8. This case more than reinforces that premise.
posted on September 23, 2000 10:55:15 AM
"It makes no difference what the buyer said about mailing September 8"
"It is post marked ONE DAY after the TOS terms and we have a seller crying foul."
Payment is to be RECEIVED within 14 days of closing not POSTMARKED one day after. He was THREE days late with payment according to eBay TOS and TEN days late according to my TOS.
It makes a difference what a person said and what he actually did when they don't line up. Mendacity is at the heart of many of the problems faced by bidders and sellers who frequent these threads.
BTW I was delivering newspapers at age 7. I get to deal with lemons as an adult
[ edited by mballai on Sep 23, 2000 10:56 AM ]
posted on September 23, 2000 12:00:02 PM
networker67: You've brought up some very good points.
I think what is most unfortunate about the unprofession control freak sellers is that they are SCARING bidders away from eBay, as they frequently create conditions which produce an alarmingly NEUROTIC nasty un-fun, to say the slightest, transaction.
Indeed, some of the TOS I read whilst surfing auctions are SO outrageously ridiculous that I seriously presume that eBay corporate competitors are inserting these auctions -- as really, the TOS are so repugnant as to be RUDE, repellant, repugnant -- giving a very BAD IMPRESSION to eBay as a whole.
Sadly, in the far future, I believe that eBay will have to insist upon ONE SET OF TERMS FOR ALL SELLERS, as it is obvious that plenty of sellers do their sales so immaturely that they are ruining the bidding experience, and thus scaring away the good sellers' potential customers.
Are you implying that I am an unprofessional control freak seller with unreasonable TOS because I ask bidders to pay promptly without any baloney? I certainly hope not.
Also, is your AW ID the same as on eBay? Just curious?
posted on September 23, 2000 02:35:35 PM
mballai: Business is based on trust. I cut people slack all the time...I'm not perfect either. I do expect that my customers will be honest with me so that we can deal with whatever problem arises. I do not consider maturity a sign that one accepts a lack of integrity as acceptable. People should be adult enough to act responsibly and admit their human failings when it affects someone else. There's no shame in that.
Well, guess what? A lot of people aren't like that. I guess you have to decide whether you can deal with it, and accept customers who don't have your "moral fiber" or you can find another career. Simple as that. Whine about customers not being forthright about their failings to your minister/shaman/rabbi.
The only thing you can do now with this bidder is send their money back. YES, send the money back. If it destroys your whole faith in the universe that a customer would pull such a misconception, then they aren't good enough to be your customer. And you yourself said that you can't accept a customer who lies.
And by all means, neg them. The retaliatory neg you get back will put the bidding community on notice who we're dealing with.
posted on September 23, 2000 03:08:39 PM
mballai: no, it is not.
I did NOT address my post to you, so kindly, if you can summon the self-control, please do not take things so very werry personally. In my post to Networker, I was speaking specifically to Networker67, of a phenomenon I noticed from early 1997 onwards on eBay auctions, to wit: the growth of a trend where some sellers have absolutely outrageous TOS, and undue personal expectations regarding the behavior of their customers. As a newbie, I was scared offa bidding on DOZENS of auctions which had longer TOS than the description of the item. Nowadays, I ain't skeeRed, just repelled, and do not bid; as I was telling Networker, none of us have any control over the behaviors of anyone excluding our own selves, but it may be possible that someday eBay will decide to STANDARDIZE all TOS, to make it easier for all bidders, and also to eradicate some of the bizarre TOS which can be found in eBay auctions.
I also am quite aware that I have NO control over others scaring bidders off eBay, so I generally do not concern myself with these issues; however, I felt that Networker67 had expressed some very important points.
