posted on February 14, 2001 08:18:07 PM new
If a seller puts in their "terms", that under failure to follow their terms of sale, they will keep your payment as a "gift". Would those terms be acceptable to you, just because they were stated in the "terms"?
IE: The seller requires the auction number, or printout, with payment.
I brought this up in the Sellers Zone and was surprised at the responses. How do you feel? I may be the one that is wrong here, but to me, I feel that would be the same as keeping money I had no right to keep. But then I do apparently, from some replies I've gotten, feel differently.
posted on February 14, 2001 08:42:09 PM new
Those are some scary terms! I agree with you that it is wrong to keep someone's money and withhold the mdse. Either send the product or return the money if it is received "too late" to complete the transaction to everybody's satisfaction. But it is a matter of ethics, so I'm sure there are those who will get away with it if they can...saddd!
posted on February 14, 2001 09:17:47 PM new
That is......
WRONG WRONG WRONG WROMG WRONG!!!!!!
I wouldnt think of bidding on someones auction if it said something like that!
You're probably taking a big chance if you fold the paper that you include with your payment incorrectly! That may be a cause to keep your payment as a gift too!
posted on February 14, 2001 10:21:05 PM new
Mint, I think that seller should have the chance to reply. So I will use the link you placed on the sellerzone and be sure to email that seller and let them know how they are being considered on the various boards.
posted on February 14, 2001 10:49:11 PM new
Hasn't anyone received a payment with just a return address, no name and nothing else to refer to. Yes, you might assume that it might be easy to figure out. But, it could be from one of the long, lost, and I might add, plentiful bad bidders on Yahoo. When I read that sentence, I did not take it as a statement that he was a crook. I took it as a humorous way of letting people know to please identify what they were paying for. If you follow through and look at his ratings, you know that he hasn't practiced what Mint4you was insinuating he was thinking of doing. In fact, if the two of them had the same item up for bids, I would bid on the person with the 107 positive rating before I would bid on the one with 1 positive rating.
Just My Opinion,
katz
posted on February 14, 2001 11:27:09 PM new
Rule no. 1: Don't threaten potential customers
Rule no. 2: Don't assume that strangers will know you are joking.
Rule no. 3: Don't assume that everyone who bids on auctions also owns a printer
Rule no. 4: Don't break the law
Regarding rule no. 4, let me give you another scenario. Assume that you are renting an apartment and someone is using your parking space without permission. You are annoyed (and rightfully so). So, you put up a sign, saying that you will assume that anyone who parks in your space is making you a gift of their car. You seize the next car that parks there.
Do you think your claims of ownership of the car would hold up in a court of law or would you be convicted of theft?
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Feb 14, 2001 11:29 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2001 02:50:55 AM new
Reading this thread reminds me of Yahoo TOS.
That too is arbitrary, and one can draw whatever conclusions one wishes to from it.
posted on February 15, 2001 06:11:59 AM new
Sounds like mail and/or computer fraud to me. They could interpret almost anything you do as a violation of their "rules," and keep your money.
Bear in mind that everything you agree to, even in a signed contract, may not hold up in law.
Look at the people who post "Not responsible" signs all over their establishments. Lawyers just love that stuff as they rake them over the coals.
Always question unreasonable conditions. Usually, it's the product of a crook or dishonest person simply trying to get away with assuming responsibility for anything and making money at it.
posted on February 15, 2001 06:25:18 AM new
"Always question unreasonable conditions. Usually, it's the product of a crook or dishonest person simply trying to get away with assuming responsibility for anything and making money at it."
Sounds like good advice when referring to Yahoo's TOS!
**********
On the subject, over 6 years now we have had at least 4 payments which we still have posted on the wall in front of our packers desk, which we never cashed, but didn't send merchandise for either, because they are Money Orders which came in with nothing written on them at all, in an envelope with nothing written on it, and no note. We have NO idea to this day what the payments are for, and had no way to return them. Oddly, one is over $100 and no one ever wrote asking where the product was!
At least twice a month we get payments we have to spend endless time searching for the person or the item or both, as they come in with no note, no reference on the MO or check, and only occasionally a return address on the envelope.
It always amazes me that people are so careless. Apparently, some buyers think they are the only buyer a seller has or that sellers have a spirit contact which supernaturally tells them who these payments are from. It is a major problem, and time waster.
posted on February 15, 2001 07:16:51 AM new
I have had over a dozen payments over the years with no clue as to what they were for.
Very fustrating indeed. There is much time spent on emailing, searching past auctions to match up the amounts, and a few times even a long distance phone call at my expence! I mean REALLY, is it that much trouble to just put a hint or some kind of clue on the check as to what the payment is for?
I'm proud to say that I did always manage to track down the errent bidder however, but I think I (and the boneheaded bidder) was just basicly lucky. I would never use terms like that seller used, but I do understand his fustration with that issue.
It can be quite tempting to call someone a thief, but we don't really know if this seller truely cashes those checks or not...
I like jwpc method of simply hanging them on the wall. Serves as a reminder, and they are accessable should the bidder suddenly remember what he or she bought.
posted on February 15, 2001 07:46:49 AM new
It's simple - if the seller cashes the check, he is a thief. If he does not, then he is not a thief.
I have no idea who the seller is that everyone seems to be referring to. I read the initial post of this thread as dealing with a hypothetical question i.e. IF a seller cashes a check with no intention of delivering the merchandise, is that ethical?
IF you make threats, be prepared for strangers who don't know you to assume that you MIGHT actually carry out the threats. It is naive to assume otherwise.
posted on February 15, 2001 09:08:50 AM new
stockticker,
No it is a real seller. Mint4you posted a link to the auction on the Sellerzone MB, with a not saying he thinks we should all be AWARE of this seller's practices.
Because the poster decided to handle this like a witch hunt and also has decided that it is appropriate for him to tell others what they should do with their auctions, I think I can tell the poster that Emailing your concern to the seller would have probably been a simpler, smarter and reasonable way to voice your opinion/oppostition to the the terms.
I hope that when you are finished dressing down and properly chastising this individual, that he snaps to and renders the proper salute!
Again, whose money did he keep?
BTW, I sell some Rockwell stuff also. Kindly steer clear of my auctions, NM, I'll put it in my terms.
edited to add:
Stockticker, I'm sory, only the first two sentences were directed towards you.
he rest was refering to actions by Mint4you.
[ edited by jimhhow on Feb 15, 2001 09:55 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2001 09:24:34 AM new
Jimhhow: I couldn't e-mail the seller because I had no idea who the seller was. I never looked at the link. I simply was interested in the ethical question posted.
I agree with you about witchhunts. The last time I saw a post here on the Yahoo forum which bashed a specific seller I alerted the moderator and the thread was deleted.
Irene
Edited to add - in that situation, the seller was actually named in the AW post.
[ edited by stockticker on Feb 15, 2001 09:26 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2001 12:24:39 PM new
We've all known the frustration of getting unidentified payments from time to time. That's why many sellers state payments without auction info will be returned. I presume his "gift" statement is an empty threat but his using it jokingly or not is a bad idea IMO. Threatening to take a buyers money and send nothing is no laughing matter. As sellers love to say "if you don't like my terms don't bid", I wouldn't. His terms make him sound too disorganized and unprofessional to attempt business with.
By the way, I did see the sellers ad when it was posted at SZ. I was curious to check his feedback for negs (he's certainly inviting them IF he's keeping money and not delivering). His total FB is 294 pos as a buyer and a grand total of ONE as a seller. One FB from selling plus the wording of his ad would in no way inspire my trust to send him any money.
posted on February 15, 2001 12:46:31 PM new
I have had problems also with buyers who seemed to think I was a mind reader. We make every effort to re-establish contact, but have even had a couple whose e-mails didn't even exist anymore (within days of the transaction). We put their checks on ice until it can be resolved. So far, we've been able to ultimately complete 100 percent of these transactions-gone-wacko.
I think after a reasonable, lawful time element, the item can and should be reposted for auction, but in no way should the original check/money order be cashed. However, it, and any letter or note that did come with it, if any, should be filed in your records for future reference if a problem should arise down the road
Okay, so what do you do if they paid in cash? To protect yourself, you need to hang on to it too and it should be considered escroe. In dealing with a cash payment, you need to ask your lawyer how long you have to retain it. I'm sure there's a period of time at which the cash would be considered lawfully abandoned.
posted on February 15, 2001 01:42:21 PM newjimhhow
You turned this into a witch hunt, not me. You are the one that stated about putting this sellers name in the "post office"? And "defamation" law suits? For what? Get real. People are entitled to question a questionable practice. This is America, after all. This is a public auction with public stated terms. I have made no accusations as to this "sellers" honesty. You insinuated that, and for that, you are touching on your own defamation claims. I only questioned such "terms", as stated. It would be nice if you would not go off the 'deep end' all of the time, insinuating was is not stated. Like you do on the Sellers Zone.
Why should a potential bidder waste time mailing the seller to find out what is meant bu such a "term"? There was no smilley face attached to the "term", (some suggested in may be a joke?). In fact there was a ! at the end of this "term". I am not involved in a "witch hunt", period. I was a potential bidder of this persons item. I have a right to ask others, in this forum, for their opinion of this "term". After all, you can not legally keep a persons money if you do not send the item(s). If you don't like the question, there is no need to try to turn it into something which is untrue to the extreme.
In the first place, we have all had problems with payments received, and yes, it can be very annoying. The question asked in this thread was:
"Would those terms be acceptable to you, just because they were stated in the "terms"?
"How do you feel?"
All of the lengthy explanations about how hard it is to locate what the payment is for, we are all aware of. We all struggle when this happens to connect the payment to the sender. But, that is not the question here. Stating it to then be considered as a "gift" is the question. Those situations don't come up that often to begin with. Would 'you' agree with this "term"?
I definitely would not. If I could not locate the sender, (which I have never been unable to do yet). I would hold the payment, regardless of the type of form it was made. That way, the sender could either void it, make contact with me about receiving it, or get their money back. A "gift"? NO WAY is it a gift. You can not cash this payment with the intent of keeping it as a "gift", under any circumstances. It is a payment for a binding contract on both parties. Trying to circumvent the laws will not give you the right to this so-called "gift". It will give you more than you bargained for, from the authorities that be.
posted on February 15, 2001 02:14:51 PM new
Mint4you:
I never said that there was "bashing" - those are your words.
I have been posting on AW since May 1999. I have seen many, many witch hunts - from auction related matters, to accusations of cyberstalking and in an extreme case last fall, hints by an poster who claimed to have received an e-mail death threat immediately following a post by her here in AW.
In area of seller complaints, I have seen many, many threads where specific sellers and buyers have been identified and discussed. I would estimate that in more 50% of the cases it has turned out as the thread developed that accusations were false or misleading.
Almost all the threads turned really ugly.
I think if the problems had been presented in a hypothetical manner, they would have taught sellers how to become better sellers and taught buyers how to have a more pleasant buying experience.
posted on February 15, 2001 02:25:51 PM new
stockticker
"The last time I saw a post here on the Yahoo forum which bashed a specific seller I alerted the moderator and the thread was deleted."
Correction. The above is your quote, not mine.
This was not a "Witch hunt". Where are you people getting this from? This was an actual posted "term" in an auction. Witch hunts were conducted to accuse persons of something they were not, or not involved in. This was an actual auction. There is a huge difference. They are to many alarmists on the boards lately. They seem to cry out with more accusations, than those they are crying out about.
posted on February 15, 2001 02:31:12 PM new
You're right (I forgot that post) - it was quite a bashing too (along the lines of "don't deal with _____, they are ____" ).
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Feb 15, 2001 02:31 PM ]
posted on February 15, 2001 03:09:18 PM new
>>>>>>>"They are to many alarmists on the boards lately"<<<<<<<
Yes, they go posting warnings and links when they have no evidence or even supposition that any wrong was committed.
Then you come over here and post it as hypothetical to try and build up support in your mind for doing so.
You know, if youcan't see the wrong in that, then I am done responding to you. Just go on trying to dictate to people what you think they should list in their terms.
posted on February 15, 2001 03:29:12 PM new
Jimhhow: I see nothing wrong with a hypothetical discussion. Is your objection to this discussion solely because the seller was identified by the same person on two different message boards (directly on Sellers Zone and indirectly here)?
posted on February 20, 2001 11:07:22 AM new
I write a sales slip on each item sold. On the slip, I write the location of the buyer as well as the total price due. When a payment comes in without any item identification, I refer to my payment pending sales book and can usually narrow down the buyer to only a possible few with the above information. I then write the potential winners requesting the item information and their actual addresses so that I might cross reference them with the envelope and shipping information I received with the payment.
this was relatively easy to do when dealing with Yahoo because they usually had location info for the buyer. I'm selling on
Bidville now and they do not give that information. It requires that I ask the buyer before sending the payment info. I do this for the reasons above as well as determining if state tax is owed also. Hope this is helpful.
posted on February 20, 2001 12:07:45 PM new
dreamgirl
I appreciate your thoughts on how to protect against unknown payments, but that was not the question of this thread.
Here is the discussion topic:
"If a seller puts in their "terms", that under failure to follow their terms of sale, they will keep your payment as a "gift". Would those terms be acceptable to you, just because they were stated in the "terms"?"
I would very much be interested in your personal opinion, on the above. Thanks again for your suggestions on location of payment sender.
Mint
typos~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[ edited by mint4you on Feb 20, 2001 12:09 PM ]
[ edited by quickdraw29 on Feb 20, 2001 11:50 AM ]