Incorrect content and damaged goods
The subject mentioned above describes two different cases that are sometimes lumped together into a single one when the buyer turns to the seller for compensation. If compensation is requested for content that differs from what was offered to the public for sale, that is one thing; if it is requested for damaged goods, that is another thing.
If I bought apples and you deliver pears, the item is nonconforming; if I bought apples and you deliver them crushed, then it is damaged goods, and the issue arises of compensation for the damage by the responsible party, presumably whoever made the delivery, the carrier. Conversely, delivery of a nonconforming item presupposes that the responsible party is the sender who sent one thing instead of another.
In buyers' compensation claims, this important difference between situations is not taken into account, and it concerns the presumed attribution of fault and therefore the questioning of the presumed responsible party. Because unless one wants to say that the seller sent goods that were already damaged and therefore different from what was offered to the public, the matter does not make much sense. But that would be a gratuitous statement, since we were not present at the delivery of the package and the package's appearance was not shown. It would suggest that the package was externally perfect but the contents damaged, and then it is not clear how it is possible to say that with a perfect package, the contents were poorly packed. How can an algorithm foresee complex and variable situations? It cannot, therefore instead of multiplying the number of compensation claims, with varying outcomes between disappointed senders and satisfied recipients, it would be more logical for the recipient to turn to the carrier for compensation rather than to the sender, who lacks circumstantial evidence, and above all not to mix different situations such as "nonconforming content" with "damaged goods"
marioelegio
·2 years agoFor the buyer there is no difference; whether the item is different or damaged, it is always a matter of non-conformity.
Law 206/05 establishes, in art. 129 paragraphs 2 and 3, what the conformity criteria are:
2. To be in conformity with the sales contract, the goods must have the following subjective requirements, where applicable:
a) correspond to the description, type, quantity and quality agreed in the contract and have the functionality, compatibility, interoperability and other characteristics provided for by the sales contract;
b) be suitable for any particular use intended by the consumer, which has been made known to the seller no later than at the time of conclusion of the sales contract and which the seller has accepted;
c) be supplied together with all accessories, instructions, including those concerning installation, provided for by the sales contract; and
d) be supplied with the updates as provided for by the sales contract.
3. In addition to meeting the subjective requirements of conformity, in order to be in conformity with the sales contract the goods must have the following objective requirements, where applicable:
a) be suitable for the purposes for which goods of the same type are normally used, taking into account, where appropriate, other provisions of national law and Union law, technical standards or, in the absence of such technical standards, applicable industry codes of conduct in the specific sector;
b) where applicable, possess the quality and correspond to the description of a sample or model that the seller made available to the consumer before the conclusion of the contract;
c) where applicable, be delivered together with the accessories, including packaging, installation instructions or other instructions, that the consumer may reasonably expect to receive; and,
d) be of the quantity and possess the qualities and other characteristics, including in terms of durability, functionality, compatibility and safety, ordinarily present in goods of the same type and that the consumer may reasonably expect, taking into account the nature of the goods and the public statements made by or on behalf of the seller, or by other persons in the preceding steps of the chain of commercial transactions, including the manufacturer, in particular in advertising or on the label.
As you can see, a damaged item is not fit for use and therefore is not conforming.
Also, according to the Consumer Code (Legislative Decree 206/05 art.63 paragraph 1), until the moment the buyer physically takes possession of the goods, the party responsible for loss or damage remains the professional seller. This means that the consumer must be protected against any damage that occurs during all stages of transport. Moreover, if the damage emerges after delivery, the professional is still liable for damage not immediately recognizable, but attributable to the carrier or to transport.
hi
mario
rehald
OP2 years agoI’m also a consumer, a private citizen who deserves to be protected against the possibility of scams, identity theft, and fraudulent tampering with goods to obtain unlawful enrichment. I have already written about the consequences of eBay’s regulations, because of which the buyer can make illicit gains by being partly compensated by the seller and fully by the carrier.
Another consequence of eBay regulating the relationship between seller and buyer is that the former is stripped of his right to receive payment. eBay guarantees the buyer with the seller’s money, which it withholds, making profits from interest that do not belong to it, and at the same time it makes collaboration between seller and buyer difficult and impossible so that the latter gives the former all the information needed to be compensated by the carrier’s insurance. Why should the buyer waste time helping the seller by providing him with all the photos of the damage to prove to the carrier? He is sure to be compensated by eBay, in practice by the sender’s subsequent sales, and he doesn’t care much about cooperating to ensure that he is reimbursed. If I had enemies who wanted to screw me over in some way, knowing that I sell my things on eBay, all they would have to do is buy them and smash them to pieces to ask me for compensation and make money by also claiming it from the carrier.
At this point it’s better to say goodbye, I’m leaving because I do not feel protected in any way by the regulation of relationships between buyer and seller on eBay; on the contrary, I feel treated like a naughty disabled child in punishment. It’s a method similar to Zuckerberg’s and one that I have no intention of repeating on eBay. For this reason, this is the last message I am writing, unless I need to reply to any others, as I am closing my account. The customer should contact the carrier, providing all the requested details, and get reimbursed by them.
Sincerely, Rehald
marioelegio
·2 years agoYou didn't understand.
It's not about an eBay regulation, but about EU laws that apply to all B2C distance sales (between a professional seller and a private individual).
Contractually, eBay, like most other platforms, extends this regulation also to C2C relationships (between private individuals).
hi
mario
rehald
OP2 years agoIt’s a common case of fraus legi facta that should be dealt with instead of encouraged ... as the saying goes? Once the law is made, the loophole is found and the EU is unfortunately run by idiots, as it has shown with the recent regulations on the eco-renovation of houses, which cannot be complied with, if only because in Italy there isn’t a sufficient number of construction companies to be able to meet the regulatory deadlines, as well as the fact that putting on external insulation where the ground and climate do not allow it turns into damage imposed by a stupid regulation. But let’s leave it at that, for brevity ...
actar80
·2 years agoFor the EU, I would also add the case of fully electric cars. They want cars in the future to be only electric and then they don’t notice the pollution from extracting materials for batteries in non-EU countries where environmental regulations don’t exist (see Report/Presa diretta investigations).
Not to mention the spikes in demand and likely outages of the electrical grid when everyone is plugged in charging megabatteries in cars and the dependence on countries that have rare minerals.
rehald
OP2 years agoNot to mention the summer exodus that will force motorists to stop for days at the pump, waiting for slow charging times to let them continue their journey in the middle of the crowd typical of the summer season. But sales are already down, people aren't stupid. The European Union under von der Leyen has done nothing good, and even the mandatory black box on every vehicle is an insult to the privacy of European citizens. And the lady, accused of conflict of interest, even has the nerve to run again. Meanwhile, if we were to leave Europe and change the currency back to the lira, there would be a 30% devaluation. The lady has also put us on the brink of a possible war with Russia ... imagine the disaster for the Economy ... it's a sore point that adds to others, Europe. It would have been better not to be part of it
daxsisko
·2 years agoin fact, between yesterday and today there were at least 5 other new posts after this........ compared to him, Pinocchio is an amateur ( ..... and leaving aside the content of the various comments......... unfortunately I love brevity, not rambling......... )
PS: is the account closure another "Pinocchio-style lie" ?
rehald
OP2 years agoI just tried to close it and Ebay tells me I have to first resolve the issue with the customer who wants to return the package. As a result, my account remains open solely at Ebay's will, not mine.
sika700
·2 years agoBut you’re the one writing... so the will to write is yours, not eBay’s!
rehald
OP2 years agoOf course I’m writing, if someone threatens me with enforcement actions to recover debts not owed, do you think I’m just going to sit there? Do I have Giocondo written on my forehead?
sika700
·2 years agoIf you don't pay, nobody threatens you... it's simply a fact!
What a guy!
rehald
OP2 years agoWould you consider it useful, given your valid points, for sellers to take out their own insurance in case the goods arrive broken and they have to refund the amount received? It seems clear to me that Paclink's insurance certainly does not compensate senders, because it wriggles out of it by making it difficult to prove the damage, the value of the goods, and the sender's identity, putting it at risk of identity theft
marioelegio
·2 years agoThe insurance almost exclusively reimburses in case of loss of the product; in case of damage (even if properly reported by the recipient), they appeal to insufficient packaging.
Only in glaring cases, of accidents, do they reimburse for damage.
bye
mario
rehald
OP2 years agoAnd that’s without even mentioning when the buyer himself encourages this kind of behavior by plainly saying that the package was poorly packed. It follows that paying for shipping insurance is completely pointless and that fragile material can’t be sent by courier but must be sold within the province where the item is located, with pickup by the buyer at the seller’s home