Wayne Richfield | InsectNet Archive Forum

exoticimports
Darwin

Posts: 2,283
Country: U.S.A.

Wayne Richfield Jun 16, 2020 5:47:12 GMT -8

Quote

Post by exoticimports on Jun 16, 2020 5:47:12 GMT -8

Sept 20, 2014 13:59:17 GMT -8 hypanartia said:

Just a comment.
I think some buyers have a severe misunderstanding about the meaning of "terms of sale". This is obvious now in e-bay.
Apparently many people believe that if the seller write down an outrageous condition in the terms of sale, the buyer is liable to follow them. For example if the terms of sale are: "We do not accept returns. If you complaint, we will kill you". This does not entitle the seller to legally kill you, if something happens, and you complaint.
Terms of sale need to be within a legal framework, and the conditions be reasonable. Otherwise they are a scam, pure and simple.

For the sake of buyers, let me clarify how terms of sale actually work from a legal context.

The seller offers the product with their terms, whatever they may be.

Upon placing an order, buyer accepts those terms. If the buyer submits and order with altered terms, the seller can elect to accept or deny the order.

Let's forget about the crazy "we will kill you" thing, and focus on some of the terms previously mentioned.

If the seller offers a (even an "unfair") credit for unavailable specimens that decreases in value over a matter of months, that is the seller's terms. Upon placing an order, buyer has accepted these terms. This is not without precedent: many retailers provide refunds/ credit in the form of debit cards which have a one-year lifespan, after which they become of zero monetary value. This has been fully supported by the courts.

What is reasonable, if one thinks terms are unreasonable, would have to be taken to a court in the seller's jurisdiction. This would have to be done after the purchase. Then one would have to convince the court to apply an emotional, rather than legal, ruling and explain why the terms the buyer accepted now, post-facto, seem to be unreasonable. Good luck.

A scam is an intent to defraud. It would have to be proven. Anyone is free to call someone a scammer, albeit at risk of a libel lawsuit.

As far as Ebay, when one sells on Ebay one accepts Ebay's terms of sale. These are very much skewed in favor of the buyer, under the guise of buyer protection, but really designed to increase Ebay's revenue via increased buying confidence. Ebay's sales terms are not reflective of typical sales terms or conditions. That said, if one does enjoy the virtually risk-free buying environment, then buy on Ebay...but keep in mind the seller is not as well protected as one may think- go back and read the thread on the faked Ornithoptera out of Russia.

Hope that helps everyone decide how and where to buy.

Chuck

nomihoudai
Darwin

Claude

Posts: 1,618

Wayne Richfield Jun 16, 2020 6:13:18 GMT -8 via mobile

Quote

Post by nomihoudai on Jun 16, 2020 6:13:18 GMT -8

Not commenting on the topic, but the terms of sale...

I don't know if we have a cultural misunderstanding here, I don't know all of the laws in the US yet, but I do have a fair amount of practical knowledge of online retail in Europe.

Terms of sale are like anything bound to legal frame works. At least in Europe, if something in a terms of sale defies consumer laws the whole article becomes void.

This is especially likely in the handling of returns, which is also a thing that happens on a fairly common basis. For this reason it is usually a good idea to split the article that handles returns into multiple articles to keep up with changing consumer laws.

Not much emotions involved in this, just the law, plain and simple.

In Europe people would have 14 days of return protection for full refund, and on top of that the seller would have to return an article of equal value or the money, so there you could very easily sue his pants off.

Here I don't know, but based on the fact that even Wholefoods keeps selling rotten onions and garlic in the open I think his practices are fairly legal.

Last Edit: Jun 16, 2020 6:19:02 GMT -8 by nomihoudai

lepimap.click - butterfly distribution lists.

nomihoudai
Darwin

Claude

Posts: 1,618

Wayne Richfield Jun 16, 2020 6:45:29 GMT -8

Quote

Post by nomihoudai on Jun 16, 2020 6:45:29 GMT -8

After a quick look into the topic, the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act from 1966 is law on federal level, Section 2 a (7) states: A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his business, vocation, or occupation, he: represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality,or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;

So under this article, the replacement practice which is common for small dealers of insects is illegal. We all agree that many times there is no issue with it and we as buyers agree to it as a courtesy. If anyone has been harmed by the practice within the US they can get their money back as stated in section 3 of the act:

SECTION 3. [Remedies.](a) A person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice of another may be granted an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms that the court considers reasonable. Proof of monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive is not required. Relief granted for the copying of an article shall be limited to the prevention of confusion or misunderstanding as to source.

Now if I only knew what to do against these bloody moldy onions at Wholefoods...

Last Edit: Jun 16, 2020 6:46:03 GMT -8 by nomihoudai

lepimap.click - butterfly distribution lists.