Attention UPDATED EXCHANGE RULES

Status
Not open for further replies.
Boru13 Boru13

What is the appropriate action if we see new posts for sale that clearly run contrary to the rules. Simply report? Comment in the sales thread and copy the section from the rules?

What do you recommend?

This feels like it could become an administrative burden for the Mods.

Nevertheless, this is a good move!
 
craytab said:
Just in case you are interested here is the law: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rul...-proceedings/mail-internet-or-telephone-order
And before you say "but I did ship the item". That is not what "ship" means in this instance, it means the act of getting the item to the buyer. Remember, the language is from 1975.
Click to expand...
Bottom Line said:
This post and that link should be required reading for anyone to sell something on this or any other forum.
Click to expand...
Jeez, Louise! What the heck is all this about? If you are trying to make a point, at least get your facts straight!
It's starting to give foundation to the premise that getting any attention, even bad attention, is better than getting none!
What is your statement: "Remember, the language is from 1975" supposed to mean? Laws written as far back as 1776 still stand and will do so until changed - no matter the language used in time frame in which they were written.
Since you took the time to include the link, I took the the time to follow it.
The first thing I noticed was that it is a Rule, not "the law" as you state.
Here is what it says.
"The Rule, issued in 1975, requires sellers who solicit buyers to order merchandise through the mail, via the Internet, or by phone to have a reasonable basis to expect that the sellers can ship within the advertised time frame, or, if no time frame is specified, within 30 days. The Rule also requires that, when a seller cannot ship within the promised time, the seller must obtain the buyer’s consent to a delay in shipping or refund payment for the unshipped merchandise."
Please note that the first sentence states in part that the Rule is directed towards "sellers who solicit buyers". There is no need to go any further.
There is no solicitation by the seller on Blade Forums!
The seller is offering an item for sale. If the buyer agrees to complete a transaction, he is doing so because he has contacted the seller - not because the seller initiated the contact. The buyer is looking for an item.
If confusion still exists, think of a buyer pursuing the Want Ads in a newspaper.
Give it a rest and quit beating the horse, it's already dead.
OG
 
OLd_gUY said:
Jeez, Louise! What the heck is all this about? If you are trying to make a point, at least get your facts straight!
It's starting to give foundation to the premise that getting any attention, even bad attention, is better than getting none!
What is your statement: "Remember, the language is from 1975" supposed to mean? Laws written as far back as 1776 still stand and will do so until changed - no matter the language used in time frame in which they were written.
Since you took the time to include the link, I took the the time to follow it.
The first thing I noticed was that it is a Rule, not "the law" as you state.
Here is what it says.
"The Rule, issued in 1975, requires sellers who solicit buyers to order merchandise through the mail, via the Internet, or by phone to have a reasonable basis to expect that the sellers can ship within the advertised time frame, or, if no time frame is specified, within 30 days. The Rule also requires that, when a seller cannot ship within the promised time, the seller must obtain the buyer’s consent to a delay in shipping or refund payment for the unshipped merchandise."
Please note that the first sentence states in part that the Rule is directed towards "sellers who solicit buyers". There is no need to go any further.
There is no solicitation by the seller on Blade Forums!
The seller is offering an item for sale. If the buyer agrees to complete a transaction, he is doing so because he has contacted the seller - not because the seller initiated the contact. The buyer is looking for an item.
If confusion still exists, think of a buyer pursuing the Want Ads in a newspaper.
Give it a rest and quit beating the horse, it's already dead.
OG
Click to expand...
If you make a post for sale you are soliciting buyers.
 
OLd_gUY said:
Jeez, Louise! What the heck is all this about? If you are trying to make a point, at least get your facts straight!
It's starting to give foundation to the premise that getting any attention, even bad attention, is better than getting none!
What is your statement: "Remember, the language is from 1975" supposed to mean? Laws written as far back as 1776 still stand and will do so until changed - no matter the language used in time frame in which they were written.
Since you took the time to include the link, I took the the time to follow it.
The first thing I noticed was that it is a Rule, not "the law" as you state.
Here is what it says.
"The Rule, issued in 1975, requires sellers who solicit buyers to order merchandise through the mail, via the Internet, or by phone to have a reasonable basis to expect that the sellers can ship within the advertised time frame, or, if no time frame is specified, within 30 days. The Rule also requires that, when a seller cannot ship within the promised time, the seller must obtain the buyer’s consent to a delay in shipping or refund payment for the unshipped merchandise."
Please note that the first sentence states in part that the Rule is directed towards "sellers who solicit buyers". There is no need to go any further.
There is no solicitation by the seller on Blade Forums!
The seller is offering an item for sale. If the buyer agrees to complete a transaction, he is doing so because he has contacted the seller - not because the seller initiated the contact. The buyer is looking for an item.
If confusion still exists, think of a buyer pursuing the Want Ads in a newspaper.
Give it a rest and quit beating the horse, it's already dead.
OG
Click to expand...
Sorry, you are wrong here. I mention the word "ship" because obtuse people will say they did "ship" the item but that is not what is meant in the rule, it means the item is shipped to the buyer and the buyer gets it. Sorry if that was not clear to you.

Solicitation absolutely counts here. This is not that complicated.

We have rules and laws that state a seller must get an item to a buyer. Period.
 
craytab said:
Sorry, you are wrong here. I mention the word "ship" because obtuse people will say they did "ship" the item but that is not what is meant in the rule, it means the item is shipped to the buyer and the buyer gets it. Sorry if that was not clear to you.
Click to expand...

I wasn't familiar with this rule, so thanks for citing it. Can you point me to the section which says "ship" means the item is shipped to the buyer and the buyer gets it? I skimmed through this pretty fast and so likely missed it, but all I saw was the section under "435.1 Definitions" which says: (e) Shipment shall mean the act by which the merchandise is physically placed in the possession of the carrier.

Thanks,

Andrew
 
Again, if you "anti- sellers responsibilty" guys were to buy something from an online store and in didn't show up you would be ok with them keeping your money?
 
craytab said:
Very good question. People generally don't read any rules. Boru13 Boru13 should we be reporting people? That could mean a ton of reports and a lot of work for you folks. I bet overtime it would reduce but still.
Click to expand...
TRfromMT said:
Boru13 Boru13

What is the appropriate action if we see new posts for sale that clearly run contrary to the rules. Simply report? Comment in the sales thread and copy the section from the rules?

What do you recommend?

This feels like it could become an administrative burden for the Mods.

Nevertheless, this is a good move!
Click to expand...
I would prefer that for the time being this is not reported, it's going to take some time before the rule change becomes common knowledge.

However I do plan on spending quite a bit more time in the Exchange spreading the word ;)
 
AFAustin said:
I wasn't familiar with this rule, so thanks for citing it. Can you point me to the section which says "ship" means the item is shipped to the buyer and the buyer gets it? I skimmed through this pretty fast and so likely missed it, but all I saw was the section under "435.1 Definitions" which says: (e) Shipment shall mean the act by which the merchandise is physically placed in the possession of the carrier.

Thanks,

Andrew
Click to expand...
Yes, I see that issue. This debate raged on for a while several years ago. That may not have been the document I was thinking of, it was far more relevant to the non-delivery of survive knives.

Here is some more relevant law, all be it more complicated:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-504

If you go to the main article there is lots more to go through. I don't have the time to do so.

But at the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the seller to get the buyer the goods.
 
Boru13 said:
I would prefer that for the time being this is not reported, it's going to take some time before the rule change becomes common knowledge.

However I do plan on spending quite a bit more time in the Exchange spreading the word ;)
Click to expand...
Understood.
 
AFAustin said:
I wasn't familiar with this rule, so thanks for citing it. Can you point me to the section which says "ship" means the item is shipped to the buyer and the buyer gets it? I skimmed through this pretty fast and so likely missed it, but all I saw was the section under "435.1 Definitions" which says: (e) Shipment shall mean the act by which the merchandise is physically placed in the possession of the carrier.

Thanks,

Andrew
Click to expand...
This one is in that same article and I think it is relevant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-509

Again, it gets complicated and the language is legal beyond me. Interesting though.
 
Wow... I'm surprised at the number of folks, few as they are, who are insisting that the buyer is high and dry in the event of a SNAFU. I thought it was a rule here; if it's not, then it should be. The high court of GBU certainly considers it so :D
 
Well, i had a buyer complain about me charging paypal, and making insurance optional. So if paypal charges is 3.5% and 5% for over seas accounts yet a post office money order is free.. are we to post 3 prices for each knife we're selling ? Ive increased prices to add insurance. But one price for all forms of payment really leaves a big difference in what you get for your blade. Any suggestions?
 
fbusmc said:
Well, i had a buyer complain about me charging paypal, and making insurance optional. So if paypal charges is 3.5% and 5% for over seas accounts yet a post office money order is free.. are we to post 3 prices for each knife we're selling ? Ive increased prices to add insurance. But one price for all forms of payment really leaves a big difference in what you get for your blade. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Good question. Given what the new rule is and what Boru13 Boru13 has said, I'd offer an all inclusive Us price, and if you are willing to ship internationally offer that, with a request to contact you and the price can be based on country (PayPal fees) and actual shipping to said country. Go from there.
 
fbusmc said:
Well, i had a buyer complain about me charging paypal, and making insurance optional. So if paypal charges is 3.5% and 5% for over seas accounts yet a post office money order is free.. are we to post 3 prices for each knife we're selling ? Ive increased prices to add insurance. But one price for all forms of payment really leaves a big difference in what you get for your blade. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
The rule isn't that there is only one price, it says no more "net to me" so the buyer isn't doing math.

Actually now that I've considered the thread in whole, no insurance implies the seller can get a small discount in exchange for taking loss in the event of a mess up. I don't agree with that, so raise your prices if you want for insurance that's the idea. If your knives don't sell then you'll have to lower them accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Why is this SO hard people? o_O

fbusmc said:
Well, i had a buyer complain about me charging paypal, and making insurance optional. So if paypal charges is 3.5% and 5% for over seas accounts yet a post office money order is free.. are we to post 3 prices for each knife we're selling ? Ive increased prices to add insurance. But one price for all forms of payment really leaves a big difference in what you get for your blade. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

According to the PayPal TOS, the seller, YOU, are supposed to cover those fees they charge for using their service to get paid. NOT the buyer!!!

If you are saying that you'll give a "discount" for a MO by posting different prices for each payment option, you're insinuating that you're making the buyer pay those fees if they use PP. That's a violation of PP's TOS. Maybe not quite as bad as blatantly asking for a F&F payment, but you're still in violation of their rules.

A different list price for domestic and international purchases would be OK if you're saying the shipping price is different (which it surely would be), but again, not because of the different PP fee percentage, as that is your cost.
 
SpyderPhreak said:
Why is this SO hard people? o_O



According to the PayPal TOS, the seller, YOU, are supposed to cover those fees they charge for using their service to get paid. NOT the buyer!!!

If you are saying that you'll give a "discount" for a MO by posting different prices for each payment option, you're insinuating that you're making the buyer pay those fees if they use PP. That's a violation of PP's TOS. Maybe not quite as bad as blatantly asking for a F&F payment, but you're still in violation of their rules.

A different list price for domestic and international purchases would be OK if you're saying the shipping price is different (which it surely would be), but again, not because of the different PP fee percentage, as that is your cost.
Click to expand...
Yep. When I pay cash at the grocery store, I don't get a discount just because the credit card companies charge the merchant a fee. I suppose I'm subsidizing the folks who do pay with plastic, since I'm sure the store averages out such costs of doing business and sets their prices accordingly.

Also, if I'm understanding the rules correctly, the seller doesn't have to buy insurance, just that it's his, not the buyer's responsibility. I might decide not to buy insurance, knowing that if the knife is lost en-route, I'll have to refund the money. It might make sense to me to take that risk and "self-insure" if I'm selling a few inexpensive knives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top