I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but wasn’t it the seller’s choice to sell internationally? So doesn’t that place at least some of the responsibility on their side?
crazy that some people here actually believe it is the sellers fault. The seller owes you exactly 0$, this is solely a problem between you and the customs / laws in your country.
4 Likes
I think the fact that the opinions on this are so evenly split, and the fact that the seller was willing to negotiate a partial refund suggests that OP should probably do a partial refund.
1 Like
Did anyone say the seller’s at fault? I haven’t read a single reply that’s said that.
So if I sell something and it gets lost in transit on the way to the buyer, I don’t owe the buyer anything? After all, the issue was my country’s postal service, not me! No. The reality is that the seller has to get the item as described to the buyer. That’s how selling on eBay works. Just because it’s not the seller’s fault doesn’t mean the seller doesn’t have to make it right.
1 Like
The great thing about facts is that they aren’t beholden to opinions. The fact is the item showed up not as described. However that happened, not described is the reality. eBay’s money back policy is crystal clear. This buyer will be covered. End of thread.
2 Likes
BOTH the seller and the buyer assume risk when selling/buying internationally due to Customs, regardless of which country’s customs opens it. Customs will open things on a whim so no one can really say when Customs will be involved in opening sealed product or not.
The fairest thing to do in this situation is do a partial refund based on the price of loose packs versus sealed. The seller loses money and the buyer loses out on a a sealed product. If there’s a way to send a complaint to customs, I’d do that but I know little of how that process would work.
This was no major fault of either side - however both assumed the risk as both buyer and seller.
Customs is like the chaotic hand of buying/selling. Sometimes it lets things pass undamaged and other times it rips open the things we hope to enjoy. Everyone just has to hope for the former versus the latter.
4 Likes
This is the price of doing business for the seller. Just like retailers need to account for shrinkage, the seller needs to account for these business costs. The customer is always right.
Can you point me to the section of eBay’s policy that states this?
It’s interesting how split the argument is. It’s an unfortunate situation and I think most perspectives here have merit.
To me though I really do think the liability lands on the buyer. If the item is damaged during shipping, its the seller’s responsibility because they chose the shipping method, the way the item was packed and at least had the option to buy insurance. The seller is also the only one with recourse - to hold the shipping company liable for the damages and get the insurance money.
In this case though, it’s the rules and procedures of the buyer’s country that caused the problem. There is literally nothing the seller (or the shipping company) could have done to create a different outcome. The only recourse available is for the buyer to hold their customs agency accountable for the damages (good luck though).
To me, it doesn’t make sense that we all agree the buyer is responsible for the customs fee but not for anything else the customs agency does. When importing an item, you are agreeing to pay any fees and you are agreeing to a possible inspection by customs.
Obviously Ebay might side with the buyer regardless but I think if we take an unbiased look at this, it mostly falls on the buyer and their country
Thank you for coming to my TED talk
14 Likes
it is not the fault of the seller at all. As was said already in this thread there was nothing they could have done to prevent this from happening. A country’s customs enforcement and import processes is not the seller’s responsibility.
If the seller were to accept a return the buyer receives a full refund and gets to walk away with virtually zero loss while the seller receives something of significantly less value. Seems pretty unfair for something that was completely out of their control. Saying it is just the “cost of doing business” is short sighted when it was the buyer who chose to buy from an international seller. The buyer is the one assuming the risk.
This is a nightmare situation for the seller: Buyer claims “item not as described” claiming customs opened it and refuses to take it up with customs or provide proof that is what happened. For all the seller knows, the buyer could be trying to scam him. I’m not saying that’s the case here but try to put yourself in the seller’s shoes with the information they have. The seller offering partial refund is extremely generous.
This is all the more reason to use GSP or just not sell internationally at all.
1 Like
Genuinely curious: where do you think liability lands if an item is lost in transit? It’s neither the buyer or seller’s fault, but USPS’s fault. There’s nothing the seller could’ve done to create a different outcome. Do you also think the buyer should be liable in this instance? If not, then how is dragonwarrior’s situation meaningfully different from this situation?
The seller could have chosen to only ship domestically in their country. That is a choice that we all make. Years ago I made the decision not to ship internationally because the risk outweighs the reward, case and point here. Even if this wasn’t eBay, what financial institution isn’t going to side with their buyer in a situation like this one? While I can sympathize all day with the seller, stuff like this is the cost of doing business in the manner he chose to do business. The buyer should return the package and the seller do what he needs to do as far as recouping the cost.
The seller chose the shipping method and chose whether or not to purchase insurance. They are the only one with recourse, ie. getting the insurance money from the shipping company. The buyer could not have done anything to prevent it and has no recourse
3 Likes
Why don’t sellers pay customs fees?
4 Likes
But in dragonwarrior’s instance, the seller chose to allow international buyers. And what happened is a known risk with international shipping. The seller could’ve chosen to sell the item domestically and wouldn’t have taken on this risk. I’m not blaming the seller, just pointing out that both situations involve the seller taking on a certain amount of risk.
1 Like
The buyer chose to import goods from abroad. That’s why customs fees are paid by the buyer.
4 Likes
The buyer chose to buy internationally which means they are consenting to the customs process and any relevant fees.
The argument that the seller is at fault because they took on the risk of international shipping isn’t persuasive because the buyer is literally making the same choice. The question is, why does the seller have to take on the liability for import rules of the buyer’s country?
8 Likes
I think people are confusing “fault for the damage that occurred” with “responsibility for financial reimbursement”. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the seller is at fault for the box getting opened/damaged. But as far as responsibility for financial reimbursement goes, the rules are clear. The responsibility is the seller’s. Whether this is fair or not is a different discussion.
@pkmnflyingmaster, I’m not sure why you equate import fees to reimbursement in case of damage caused by local customs. The origins of these 2 are very different. Import fees are supposed to protect and support the national economy so people will prefer buying from their own nation’s supply. The buyer wanted to buy something from overseas and in theory chose to support another nation over their own (and that really only works in theory because individual trading cards are not commonly shared goods) so they have to pay premium. In the other case, the seller has all the responsibilities that sellers/businesses have all the time anyway, which is to take responsibility for their goods until they get delivered to the customer.
5 Likes
eBay’s policy is clear. I actually agree with the sentiment, but that doesn’t matter. Your opinion, my opinion, everyone’s opinion in this thread doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is eBay’s policy which does not provide guidelines (that I could find at least) in this specific scenario. That ultimately means that the buyer is going to get reimbursed, the seller can try to fight eBay and get them to cover it. If there wasn’t a mediator in the deal this would be a much more interesting discussion, unfortunately for the seller, they chose to sell on eBay and agree to play by their rules.
It’s not just damage, it’s an inspection which is something you consent to when you import an item. Just like fees, they have a reason to do inspections, primarily to ensure nothing illegal or unclaimed is entering the country. Both customs fees and inspections are very intentional. I don’t see how one part of the process is responsibility of the buyer but another part is not.
5 Likes