Paypal reversal for sellers restocking fee

Most folks who know me know that I am an honest man, I have 3 children and I work for all of you. Not as a numismatist persay but as a US Military member. Yes I am in the Air Force, I work hard for an honest pay every 1st and 15th. As many of you know I purchased a coin from a seller on ebay. No need to mention names. This individual sold me a coin through ebay and I was not satisfied with the purchase. Apparently there is a statement in his listing about charging a restocking fee for returned items. I feel that if the item is NOT as described that the restocking fee should be waived.

I sent the item back and the seller charged me a restocking fee. I then went through the proper channels at PAYPAL and filed a claim and after a week and half I was rewarded my money for the restockfee. I feel that restocking fees are just a poor excuse for BAD BUISNESS PRACTICE. If any of my customers feel that the item they recieve from me does not suit them or is not as described I ALWAYS give a FULL REFUND. I feel that the seller should not get paid for a coin they really didn't sell and especially if it is under false pretenses.

This just goes to show that this restock fee does not hold up well with paypal claims. Thanks for listening and I hope you guys learn something from this. Tom

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow, I'm not at all suprised, worked for me once as well and paypal frowned on the practise they said.

Kudos for not rubbing in the name of the seller as well.
Thanks for your service...I'm a Navy dad

 

Thanks to you for serving the USA From a former AF brat

 

Interesting, especially for me.

I DO NOT USE PAYPAL so I might tend to look at auctions from a different angle.
If I see a 15% restocking fee I basically will NOT bid.

I know some sellers are huge business and there is time involved that requires paying employees to put a coin "back into the syestem" as it were. However, most of the restocking fees are total rubbish IMHO and serve as nothing but a deterrent to anyone returning a coin. If someone returns coin they make a few quick bucks and re list it. Now they can sell cheaper.

People get burned because they don't read the fine print in many cases. This is why a few of us have been listing "information auctions". Mine is winding down while Arizona Jack's gains steam.

Glad to hear you got your money back but, playing devil's advocate, if you bid and it was stated in the auction ebay calls it a contract don't they? Even if coin is misrepresented. It's a loophole and ebay is full of them.

clembo

 

While it is true is it also not true that EBAY owns Paypal. Just because someone puts something in their auction does NOT automatically make it law! If this were true then Paypal would not have sided with me.

 

It doesn't make it "law", it makes it "contract".

Paypal has chosen to side with you in disregarding an explicit contract term. It it were worth the seller's while to pursue it in court, any competent judge would enforce the contract, and potentially assess damages against Paypal/EBay for malicious interference with with an economicly advantageous relationship.

 

No need to get upset. That was not my intention.
As I stated I was playing "devil's advocate".

Many here on CT can tell you I'm am NOT a fan of many selling practices that occur on ebay. I merely made a point in the seller's favor whether or not I agree with it and I don't for the record.


This is why I, and others, are listing "informative auctions". We hate to see these situations but caveat emptor is always there.
Hontonai takes it a step further.

 

Ask Denny's if the fact they had a sign that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" protected them from an illegal discrimination suit. Just because you put something in an auction listing doesn't give it the force of law or contract. If so I could put the words "I reseve the right to keep your money and not send you anything" in an auction and be able to legally steal people's money. Good luck trying to argue that constitutes a legal contract.

I'll leave it to buyers to decide whether they want to bid on something from a seller that charges a restocking fee and to sellers to decide if they want to charge one. However I will say that if the item you buy is not as described the entire transaction is void... a seller who has basically defrauded the buyer, which is exactly what he has done if he didn't provide exactly the item the seller paid for, is not legally or contractually entitled to a single penny. I guarantee if you took something like this to court any competent lawyer would be able to succesfully make that argument, and any competent judge would agree. At the very least the seller would have to provide a full refund to the buyer... if any damages were assesed, it would be the seller who would have to pay them, not the buyer.

This isn't a case of the buyer just changing his mind... the buyer was defrauded by not being sent the item he paid for... I guarantee no statement that the seller is entitled to a fee for reversing a fraudulent transaction would ever hold up in a court of law, no matter what a contract states. An illegal contract is no contract, and that's one of the basic principles of contract law.

 

Glad to hear that Paypal ruled in your favor and you got your money back. I hate dishonest ebay sellers. My advice to anyone buying a coin on Ebay is to pay via paypal and always use a credit card. Remember, Ebay owns Paypal so that in itself represents a conflict of interest. When Paypal claims that your purchase is protected via "buyer protection" don't believe them. If your dispute is with a high volume seller of which Ebay is collecting a large amount of fees from then it is only reasonable to assume they are more inclined to side with that seller than with you should a dispute arise. By using a credit card you are reserving your right to request a chargeback in the event that Paypal rules against you the buyer. Fortunately, most sellers I've encountered are honest enough that most Ebay transactions never need to reach that point in a dispute. However, it's best to protect yourself as much as possible.

 

Troodon,

The example (Denny's) is a bit extreme now isn't it. Along with "I reserve the right to not send you anything".

That aside if the coin in question is raw then what? Do both sides bring in a bunch of "experts" for opinions. Does it turn into PCGS v. NGC?

I don't hink you can guarantee anyone would win. You may end up with two that lose though.

This is why I stress reading the full auction and then decide if you wish to suffer any "consequences". I would not have bid personally.

 

The Denny's example is a perfect example that just because you put up a sign or put a term in the contract, it doesn't automatically give it the force of law. Hardly extreme. Want a more extreme example, see if you can sue a hitman for not killing the person you paid them to kill under "breach of contract." The fact that the conduct procsribed in the contract is itself illegal nullifies the legal force of the contract. Actually, that's not so extreme, as that's exactly the case here... the fact that the conduct is illegal (fraud) invalities any argument that the contract is in any way legally binding. The fact that both parties signed a contract does not protect one party from the consequences of comitting a crime, in this case fraud.

I doubt it would take much of an expert to be able to compare a given coin with the description and determine whether or not it is as described, based on objective measures. If the difference is subjective and thus arguable on the basis of opinion, I'd side with the seller, but if the difference is objectively and factually apparent, I'd say that the seller comitted a fraud and would side with the buyer (even if the seller made an honest mistake I would still side with the buyer, as the buyer shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's mistake.). I could guarantee you any court would do the same.

If you go to a clothing store and ask for a black suit, pay for it, take it home and open the box, and see you got a blue suit instead... would you believe the seller is entitled to a restocking fee for the seller's error? I hope you don't. Even more so if the seller intentionally provided something other than what was paid for (in legal terms, that would be called fraud!). If it's just a difference of opinion or a case of the buyer changing his mind, then fine... but no contract protects a seller who makes a mistake or commits fraud... no contract with illegal terms is legally valid, by definition.

 

It is bad enough that you have to return a coin because the picture and/or description were not accurate and you're not satisfied with your coin, but to add a restocking fee is excessive. The disappointed auction winner usually has to pay shipping & insurance both ways just to get a refund.

Twice lately, I had to return a <$300 coin because the pictures were photoshopped and not at all accurate depictions of the coin I received. In both cases I had to pay shipping & insurance. When I used Paypal dispute I received my total cost + postage one way.

I think Paypal did the right thing by refunding the fee.

Bruce

 

Guys,

I was playing "devil's advocate" as mentioned earlier - twice as a matter of fact.

Troodon,

Of course I would not pay a restocking fee for a black suit that was blue. What I'm saying is read the fine print plain and simple.

If you don't like the fine print then pass. Very simple.


As for lawyers and coin "experts", well we fall back into it. ALL lawyers are honest and so would the "experts" they would bring in be.

Lawyers are paid to represent. Which one does it most convincingly, whether or not it's true, wins the case. Gonna tell me the seller's lawyers would bring in REAL "experts" if they knew the client was wrong? They work for money just like the rest of us.

 

OK I don't think we actually disagree here then... I agree with you on the point of reading the fine print and using that in your bidding/purchasing decision. A restocking fee always sends up a red flag for me... if a seller is honest and willing to stand behind their merchandise, they shouldn't need such a protection. An honest seller with quality merchandise should be able to make a reasonable profit even if they ocassionally get stuck with an impossible to please customer who returns the merchandise they just decided they didn't like. As someone who has worked retail for many years (and still does, part-time) I can attest to that.

But imagine a situation where you go to an eBay auction page, see a picture of a really nice coin, decide it's a good enough deal to buy... you win it, pay for it... but when the coin shows up, it's nothing at all like it was in the picture. You return it and the seller charges you a restocking fee. Do you just sit back and say "oh well, my fault for assuming I'd actually get what I paid for, and the seller did mention the restocking fee in the auction, so I guess I have to pay it..." or instead do you say "It's not like I just changed my mind here, the seller didn't give me what I paid for, I shouldn't have to pay anything, whether he mentioned a restocking fee or not!" For me it would definitely be the latter, that's the only point I was trying to make. I wouldn't accept the "contract" argument when at best the seller made a mistake he's expecting me to pay for and at worst he comitted fraud. A contract does not provide any legal protection to a seller who does either of those things.

I won't comment on the honesty of lawyers... I think that some are honest, some are not, no different than any other profession... but yes a court case is more about who presents a more convincing story than whose side the law is on. However being able to demostrate that the law is clearly on your side holds a lot of weight with juries and/or judges, and a good lawyer wil always be able to do that. The law being on your side is no guarantee of success, but it does tip the odds in your favor.

 

Obviously my 43 years as a licensed attorney and my 12 years as a volunteer Small Claims Court Judge Pro Tem don't qualify me to voice a legal opinion, so carry on guys.

 

Troodon,

Works for me. We both made valid points and I'm not here to argue.

Not slamming lawyers either but business is business unfortunately.

Believe me IF I got a coin that was horribly misrepresented and charged a restocking fee I'd not be a happy camper. This is why I avoid them, especially since I don't use Paypal. I rarely bid anymore either and not untill I ask A LOT of questions.

Years ago I bought an 1872 2 Cent Piece gradef VF by a big ebay seller, big national dealer and a contributor to Redbook to boot. Overgraded piece of garbage with multiple rim hits and VG detail. I bought it off his web site actually and made sure there were NO restocking fees.
Called the guy on it (via telephone) and he was really nasty. Basically called me an idiot because HE was "Mr. Redbook". Well, I had shown that coin to many dealers, friends and just so happens I'm a Two Cent Junkie. Sent it back with every kind of insurance and certification that I could just to make sure he didn't claim it never got there.

Yes, I spent extra money but was worth it. He had every intention of ripping me off for a lot more.

Just pathetic when you get down to it.

 

Expertise is no guarantee of being right nor is its lack proof of being wrong. Anyone can make a mistake, no matter how experienced (less likely with experience of course, but not impossible) and anyone can acquire knowledge even with little or no experience. Not to mention that interpretation of the law, especially in civil cases, can largely be a subjective matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact what the law says, but what the law means is often a matter of interpretation. However, I'd certaintly put more faith an expert opinion than a less informed one... if a majority of experts have a consensus on an issue that differs from mine, I'd certaintly be willing to change my mind. But if the experts have mixed opinions, I'd at least feel confident that some experts agree with me.

But since you claim to have this experience, what would be your expert opinion on a case where a seller sells an item to a buyer that is not how the seller described it, and claims he has a right to charge a fee anyway, becuase the contract mentioned a restocking fee? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that a contract is a two way obligation, and if one party fails to hold up their end of the contract, it releases the other party from their obligation to hold up their end of it. In the example of the eBay auction: The buyer has entered into a contract with the seller to pay an agreed upon amount in exchange for the seller providing the buyer with a certain described item. If the seller provides an item not as described under the contract (by a provable objective measure, not just a difference of opinion; for example the coin sent clearly doesn't match the picture shown on the auction page), the seller has failed to honor his terms of the contract. At that point, I would say the buyer is released from any legal obligation to hold up his end. Would you or would you not agree with that?

Even experts can disagree of course, so the fact that an expert disagrees with me doesn't prove I'm wrong, but if an expert agrees with me it certaintly makes me more confident about being right. However even if you disagree with me I'd still be interested to hear your opinion on the matter as it's a fundamental aspect of contract law as to what obligations a party has or doesn't have when another party fails to uphold their obligations under the contract. It's long been my understanding that a party to a contract is legally obligated to abide by its terms so long as all other parties do the same (not to mention the first party to breach it may also be held liable for damages caused by breach of contract)... is that or is that not correct, in your expert opinion?

 

Is Armen Vartian a lawyer who specializes in contract law, a judge, or a legislator who writes contract law? My main source for that assertion is talking to a few law students who tell me that in their contract law classes that's about the first thing they teach you. Of course when actually tried in a courtroom it doesn't always work out that way... what the law means is largely open to interpretation, and it depends more on what side presents the most convincing argument that it does on whose side the law is on... but it still remains a basic principle that a contract is only binding so long as all parties abide by it... as soon as one party fails to do so, no other party is obligated to do so either. If any lawyer, judge, legislator, or other such recognized expert disagrees, and can cite a law or case history that reinforces their belief, I'd be happy to hear it.

In this specific example:

I think you could make a good case that if the seller sent you something other than described, the contract could be set aside by reasons of misrepresentation, if it could be shown by a provable measure (not just a matter of opinion) that what the seller promised is not what the seller provided.