The other orders I placed on eBay from other drop shippers have not been shipped or purchased, so I am wondering when they will do whatever they are going to do. Not sure how damage their metrics the most… INR or not shipped. I don’t want to communicate so that way they can’t claim I tried to cancel.
1 Like
Wow that seller has some coconuts.
Chargeback time.
2 Likes
Maybe they’ll upload a fake tracking number that says delivered
1 Like
Ya but why have they not done that yet? Why wait till 2 days before the expected delivery window instead of like Monday or Tuesday. The expected delivery day is the 14-18th.
2 Likes
One of you eBay sellers, let me know what is the best/worse way to deal with a non shipped order as a seller please.
1 Like
I haven’t sold on ebay in a long time, but the metrics they have are basically the same as amazon FBM metrics. And just letting an order linger unfulfilled never seemed like a good option. Maybe there’s some black hat trick that I don’t know about where they would want to do that, but I can’t think of any reason to just let it sit.
1 Like
Probably hoping the price goes back down from the %250 it is currently up right now 
2 Likes
Actually that’s probably it, they’re waiting to see if it goes back down, if not they might cancel (or pay the inflated)
3 Likes
Does eBay have any insurance requirement for sellers like Amazon does? I am curious how to pursue foreign counterfeiters on eBay legally and at what point is eBay responsible for facilitating the infringement.
The idea that foreign bad actors can get away with this every minute, while eBay gets a pass is shocking. If they can shut down Backpage and Craigslist for sex trafficking this should be easy for law enforcement to do the same to eBay.
1 Like
Afaik ebay does not. But you can obtain a temp injunction and it cuts off the ability for them to get cash out of their ebay account. We’ve seen it happen to bad amazon sellers in the past also.
1 Like
Insurance doesn’t cover it anyway if the company’s a fraud, because it means that the company lied to the insurance company when they got the policy.
1 Like
What policy is voided against the insured when the insured does exactly what the policy is created for? That is like saying a car insurance policy is void from paying in a crash because the driver sucks at driving. The insurance is not for just the owners car, but the other people and cars on the road.
That is like saying malpractice insurance is void because the person they insured is not a doctor.
The coverage is created and determined when they insured the person being covered, not after a victim with a missing arm shows up at their office and the insurance company is like “whoops this policy is void” because the person they insured for medical work, is actually a plumber.
2 Likes
Almost all insurance policies exclude coverage for willful misconduct. In this example, if a seller is knowingly misrepresenting their goods, the insurance company will refuse to pay the claim, which makes the seller liable for it.
Remember this is a policy the SELLER bought to protect THEMSELVES against liability claims. If insurance covered liability from selling counterfeit goods, everybody would just go buy a huge general liability policy and sell counterfeits, and then laugh while the insurance company pays all the damages when they get caught.
2 Likes
Just another example here:
If someone’s a crappy driver, that’s one thing, but if someone intentionally uses their car as a weapon, the insurance company can and will deny the liability claim because it was willful misconduct.
2 Likes
Nail, meet hammer.
They aren’t in the business of ensuring that the insured keeps their ducks lined up in neat rows.
That’s on the insured, and almost-invariably always has been since the Roman-era precedent (read: Papinian, & Ulpian) seeped into the the “Common Law” of European polities in the early Middle Ages (reinforced several centuries later, beginning in the Crusades, by the rise of the antecedents of modern credit mechanisms).
I disagree. The liability insurance policies Amazon requires is to protect Amazon and its customers from sellers products are not simply voided just because the person selling the products decided one night that fentanyl and wheelbarrows are a perfect mix to get the job done, and then people got sick.
The insurance company can’t be like “whoops dudes a moron, we are not paying despite covering this idiot”.
No insurance company would ever cover damages in a DUI’s in your example if it were as simple to deny as your assert. Your linked claim also fails to acknowledge that insurance companies get sued and lose for the exact thing that article discusses.
There is a big difference between not covered and losing in court.
2 Likes
To add…
I believe this would cover buyers who receive counterfeit items from the seller. The insurance company would pursue protecting the seller from a false claim and the platform would hit the insurance company if the seller flees leaving the platform with the bill. Just like in the Amazon dog leash case.
1 Like
This is a valid point, did a little research on this:
The intent here matters. Being drunk is a negligent (and illegal) act, but they’re not intentionally trying to cause an accident.
If someone’s selling used as new, or counterfeit products, they’re doing so intentionally. I can’t imagine any insurance company would pay on it’s general liability policy if the insured’s entire business is just illegal. Maybe you could sue them and compel them to pay, but if the insured violated the terms of the insurance contract it would make it void.
1 Like
Sorry, but I gaurntee insurance companies pay out when some A hole brake checks another driver, despite it being intentional and a crime.
I agree with part of your assertion but not the whole part.
1 Like
Isn’t that different? They found AMAZON liable for the damages in the dog leash case (Because the seller bounced). And in that case if the seller had liability insurance, the insurance company would pay because it’s a case of a product defect, not willful misconduct.
2 Likes