|
 |
| | | Author: | enig  | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 07:00 | | Subject: | Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 248 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | Rob_and_Shelagh | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 07:11 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
Buyer does have a legal right to cancel anyway in this case. If sellers are using
NPB in this case that is wrong and Admin should look into it, sellers should
not be trying to force buyers into buying a part order. We rarely use the IRR,
instead contact the buyer if we do not have exactly what they ordered due to
a stock error and ask them if they are still happy to continue with the order
or want us to take any other action. I can't believe many sellers would do
what you are suggesting but if they do I agree that needs to be stopped.
Robert
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | graphite37 | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 10:04 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
Buyer does have a legal right to cancel anyway in this case. If sellers are using
NPB in this case that is wrong and Admin should look into it, sellers should
not be trying to force buyers into buying a part order. We rarely use the IRR,
instead contact the buyer if we do not have exactly what they ordered due to
a stock error and ask them if they are still happy to continue with the order
or want us to take any other action. I can't believe many sellers would do
what you are suggesting but if they do I agree that needs to be stopped.
Robert
|
I do the same. I let them know what is missing, offer refund or alternate part
and tell them to let me know if they'd prefer to cancel the order.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 10:11 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, graphite37 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
Buyer does have a legal right to cancel anyway in this case. If sellers are using
NPB in this case that is wrong and Admin should look into it, sellers should
not be trying to force buyers into buying a part order. We rarely use the IRR,
instead contact the buyer if we do not have exactly what they ordered due to
a stock error and ask them if they are still happy to continue with the order
or want us to take any other action. I can't believe many sellers would do
what you are suggesting but if they do I agree that needs to be stopped.
Robert
|
I do the same. I let them know what is missing, offer refund or alternate part
and tell them to let me know if they'd prefer to cancel the order.
|
Yes. But, apparently, that's not the practice that all are following
In order to move up in the queue I had to bring his order in to compliance
with
the terms by removing lots that did not comply.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=812692
not only this, but I also remember seeing some other sellers' terms that
they reserve the right to remove all lots smaller than X. It was not a single
store, I have seen it a few times..
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | MassBricks | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 10:59 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, graphite37 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
Buyer does have a legal right to cancel anyway in this case. If sellers are using
NPB in this case that is wrong and Admin should look into it, sellers should
not be trying to force buyers into buying a part order. We rarely use the IRR,
instead contact the buyer if we do not have exactly what they ordered due to
a stock error and ask them if they are still happy to continue with the order
or want us to take any other action. I can't believe many sellers would do
what you are suggesting but if they do I agree that needs to be stopped.
Robert
|
I do the same. I let them know what is missing, offer refund or alternate part
and tell them to let me know if they'd prefer to cancel the order.
|
Yes. But, apparently, that's not the practice that all are following
In order to move up in the queue I had to bring his order in to compliance
with
the terms by removing lots that did not comply.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=812692
not only this, but I also remember seeing some other sellers' terms that
they reserve the right to remove all lots smaller than X. It was not a single
store, I have seen it a few times..
|
If such policies are clearly stated in store terms, I do not believe it is against
BrickLink terms. The store in question has been discussed at great length already.
I don't know whether or not the owner is a scammer as many on the forum claim,
but he does seem to do a very good job at doing the worst job possible while
still following the rules. In his own post, he pleads incompetence. Either way,
he is not someone I ever wish to do business with.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | BLUSER_320453 | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2014 20:57 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | In Suggestions, graphite37 writes:
| | In Suggestions, Rob_and_Shelagh writes:
| | In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
Buyer does have a legal right to cancel anyway in this case. If sellers are using
NPB in this case that is wrong and Admin should look into it, sellers should
not be trying to force buyers into buying a part order. We rarely use the IRR,
instead contact the buyer if we do not have exactly what they ordered due to
a stock error and ask them if they are still happy to continue with the order
or want us to take any other action. I can't believe many sellers would do
what you are suggesting but if they do I agree that needs to be stopped.
Robert
|
I do the same. I let them know what is missing, offer refund or alternate part
and tell them to let me know if they'd prefer to cancel the order.
|
Yes. But, apparently, that's not the practice that all are following
In order to move up in the queue I had to bring his order in to compliance
with
the terms by removing lots that did not comply.
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=812692
not only this, but I also remember seeing some other sellers' terms that
they reserve the right to remove all lots smaller than X. It was not a single
store, I have seen it a few times..
|
By placing then order and agreeing to the store terms the buyers agree to have
the lots removed at the proprietors discretion. the above cases the buyer agreed
to have the items removed.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 19:48 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, enig writes:
| | *IRR - Item Removal Request
Enable buyers to cancel the order(right away) with no penalty to them, when sellers
submit IRR. Most of the time few missing pieces is not an issue, but sometimes
those few pieces may be the whole reason for the order. Buyers should not be
forced to hold up their end of the deal, if sellers are not holding up theirs.
This would also take care of the issue when sellers remove lots from the order
under their own discretion, because they dont feel like filling some of them.
Filling the more expensive lots, but cancelling the smaller ones. In other words
- flipping their buyer off..
|
I am pretty certain admin would side with the buyer in this case, when the buyer
decides to cancel the order.
But I know that not all sellers agree. I was stop listed for having the view
that I had the right to cancel if the seller did not have everything I ordered.
So there are sellers who feel the buyer should be obligated to buy the subset
of the order that they can provide, even when they can not provide the full order.
First, there should be a requirement that sellers notify buyers if not shipping
everything ordered, and a requirement to use the Item Removal request.
Maybe there should be a "Seller did not follow Bricklink policy" submission,
that a seller is only allowed so many of, before a temporary loss of selling
privileges.
Then along with that add the option to Cancel order, as a response to a seller
initiated Item Removal Request.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 20:18 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| I voted no. For several reasons.
First, if BRricksters is your motivation for this suggestion, you simply cannot
compare 99.9% of BrickLink's sellers to that one bad seller. The problem
is, fortunately, not as rampant as you believe. This suggestion is overkill,
unnecessary and ineffective.
Second, implementing this suggestion will not solve any problems. For one thing,
it is so easy to get around. If sellers risk losing an entire order they spent
time picking and packing merely because of one or two missing penny parts, they
just won't file an Item Removal Request.
Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
My policy with missing items is to let the buyer know as soon as I know something
is missing and then offer the buyer three choices to resolve the matter: (1)
A refund or credit for double the value of the missing item(s); (2) a coupon
for triple the amount of the missing item(s); or, if neither of those options
are acceptable to the buyer, (3) I will order the missing item(s) from another
seller and have them shipped directly to my buyer at my expense. This third option
makes the buyer whole. It makes it unnecessary for the buyer to order the item
elsewhere and pay more shipping costs. And the item can be received around the
same time his order with me is received.
If I am willing to make my buyer whole and provide him everything he ordered,
there is no reason he should be allowed to cancel his entire order with me. Particularly
if we are taking about a large order with numerous lots that I have spent time
on.
I suspect many other good sellers feel and do the same as I do. They should not
be penalized if they are able to make the buyer whole.
BTW, I am aware that many European sellers are subject to the Distance Selling
Regulations which require them to accept order cancellations and returns. Fortunately,
the DSR does not apply to US sellers and there is no similar law in the USA.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 21:08 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I voted no. For several reasons.
|
| |
Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
|
Maybe I should make a note, to not do my usual opportunity purchases, when I
buy from your store, and to limit my order to only the parts that I actually
came to your store for?
I understand that you feel your options, when you are missing items, is completely
fair.
But it might not work for all orders and all buyers.
If I land in your store to buy item A, and I then (to maximize value on my shipping)
also buy items B, C and D, I do not want to receive a package with only items
B, C and D even if I am getting coupons or discounts.
I still need item A, and I may need to buy additional items from the seller that
actually has item A to reach a minimum. For this I may want to buy B, C and/or
D from this seller.
If I order a large qty of item A from you, and you are short only a small qty,
that is rarely an issue for me.
But if you have none of item A, that could be a major issue for me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 21:19 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I voted no. For several reasons.
|
| |
Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
|
Maybe I should make a note, to not do my usual opportunity purchases, when I
buy from your store, and to limit my order to only the parts that I actually
came to your store for?
I understand that you feel your options, when you are missing items, is completely
fair.
But it might not work for all orders and all buyers.
If I land in your store to buy item A, and I then (to maximize value on my shipping)
also buy items B, C and D, I do not want to receive a package with only items
B, C and D even if I am getting coupons or discounts.
I still need item A, and I may need to buy additional items from the seller that
actually has item A to reach a minimum. For this I may want to buy B, C and/or
D from this seller.
If I order a large qty of item A from you, and you are short only a small qty,
that is rarely an issue for me.
But if you have none of item A, that could be a major issue for me.
|
Did you read my next paragraph before you posted? The part where I wrote:
"My policy with missing items is to let the buyer know as soon as I know something
is missing and then offer the buyer three choices to resolve the matter: (1)
A refund or credit for double the value of the missing item(s); (2) a coupon
for triple the amount of the missing item(s); or, if neither of those options
are acceptable to the buyer, (3) I will order the missing item(s) from another
seller and have them shipped directly to my buyer at my expense. This third option
makes the buyer whole. It makes it unnecessary for the buyer to order the item
elsewhere and pay more shipping costs. And the item can be received around the
same time his order with me is received."
Take a look at Option 3. If a refund/credit or coupon is not acceptable to you,
I will order the missing item(s) from another seller and have them shipped directly
to you at my expense. If so, you lose nothing. There is no need for you to order
the missing item(s) from somewhere else and have to pay more shipping.
Option 3 makes it completely unnecessary for any buyer to cancel any order with
me just because I may be missing a few things. While most buyers are entirely
satisfied with Options 1 or 2, several have chosen Option 3 and I have happily
provided them what they needed at no extra cost or inconvenience to them.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 21:27 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I voted no. For several reasons.
|
| |
Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
|
Maybe I should make a note, to not do my usual opportunity purchases, when I
buy from your store, and to limit my order to only the parts that I actually
came to your store for?
I understand that you feel your options, when you are missing items, is completely
fair.
But it might not work for all orders and all buyers.
If I land in your store to buy item A, and I then (to maximize value on my shipping)
also buy items B, C and D, I do not want to receive a package with only items
B, C and D even if I am getting coupons or discounts.
I still need item A, and I may need to buy additional items from the seller that
actually has item A to reach a minimum. For this I may want to buy B, C and/or
D from this seller.
If I order a large qty of item A from you, and you are short only a small qty,
that is rarely an issue for me.
But if you have none of item A, that could be a major issue for me.
|
Did you read my next paragraph before you posted? The part where I wrote:
"My policy with missing items is to let the buyer know as soon as I know something
is missing and then offer the buyer three choices to resolve the matter: (1)
A refund or credit for double the value of the missing item(s); (2) a coupon
for triple the amount of the missing item(s); or, if neither of those options
are acceptable to the buyer, (3) I will order the missing item(s) from another
seller and have them shipped directly to my buyer at my expense. This third option
makes the buyer whole. It makes it unnecessary for the buyer to order the item
elsewhere and pay more shipping costs. And the item can be received around the
same time his order with me is received."
Take a look at Option 3. If a refund/credit or coupon is not acceptable to you,
I will order the missing item(s) from another seller and have them shipped directly
to you at my expense. If so, you lose nothing. There is no need for you to order
the missing item(s) from somewhere else and have to pay more shipping.
Option 3 makes it completely unnecessary for any buyer to cancel any order with
me just because I may be missing a few things. While most buyers are entirely
satisfied with Options 1 or 2, several have chosen Option 3 and I have happily
provided them what they needed at no extra cost or inconvenience to them.
Thor
|
If you are going to completely fill the order anyway, then you would not be asking
to remove the item from the order.
Therefore I fail to see the relevance of your argument, to the suggestion.
You can not assume that every seller will be willing to do this.
But I admit only skimming the rest of your message.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 21:37 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
If you are going to completely fill the order anyway, then you would not be asking
to remove the item from the order.
|
Of course I will. Why should I pay BrickLink selling fees on something I have
to purchase from another seller? Filing an IRR not only reduces fees, but it
also keeps my bookkeeping and accounting more accurate.
| | You can not assume that every seller will be willing to do this.
|
I made no assumptions about "every" seller. But I do know that many good sellers
do offer this same option. Why should we be penalized with order cancellation
when the buyer suffers no harm or loss? The suggestion is overkill, ineffective
and unnecessary.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | eileenkeeney | | Posted: | Apr 16, 2014 22:25 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| |
If you are going to completely fill the order anyway, then you would not be asking
to remove the item from the order.
|
Of course I will. Why should I pay BrickLink selling fees on something I have
to purchase from another seller? Filing an IRR not only reduces fees, but it
also keeps my bookkeeping and accounting more accurate.
| | You can not assume that every seller will be willing to do this.
|
I made no assumptions about "every" seller. But I do know that many good sellers
do offer this same option. Why should we be penalized with order cancellation
when the buyer suffers no harm or loss? The suggestion is overkill, ineffective
and unnecessary.
Thor
|
Now that would really confuse me if the seller wanted me to approve the Item
Remove Request, and was still going to have the item shipped to me.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | MassBricks | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2014 01:09 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
|
That's great if I'm ordering from you or another seller with this policy.
If I order from a store without this policy, and they end up not having the main
item I wanted, you are saying that I should now be required to either pay for
the shipping cost and items I only included as add-ons, or accept NPB penalty.
Just in general, I think the penalty for an order cancellation is excessive.
If a buyer lets the seller know soon after the invoice is sent, I don't see
it as a big problem (unless they are abusive with it, such as holding up a large
portion of inventory). Especially in cases where shipping costs/fees are not
explicitly outlined (major problem with BrickLink) - sorry saying "actual shipping
cost" as most sellers here do is not enough. I have had several times where a
seller ships by a more expensive method than necessary. So I can't know how
much I will be charged before placing an order.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2014 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | ... you are saying that ...
|
No, that is NOT what I am saying.
| | Just in general, I think the penalty for an order cancellation is excessive.
If a buyer lets the seller know soon after the invoice is sent, I don't see
it as a big problem (unless they are abusive with it, such as holding up a large
portion of inventory).
|
I agree. But this is a different issue.
Thor
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2014 08:08 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, MassBricks writes:
| | ... you are saying that ...
|
No, that is NOT what I am saying.
|
that is PRECISELY what you are saying
In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | enig | | Posted: | Apr 17, 2014 07:33 | | Subject: | Re: Allow buyers to cancel order under IRR* | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I voted no. For several reasons.
First, if BRricksters is your motivation for this suggestion, you simply cannot
compare 99.9% of BrickLink's sellers to that one bad seller. The problem
is, fortunately, not as rampant as you believe. This suggestion is overkill,
unnecessary and ineffective.
|
No, bricksters is not a motivation for any of my suggestions for the site, except
maybe to stop screwing around.
If I believed that bricsters is the only store I would have not bothered with
this. I used that store merely for an example, as it was the easiest way to get
the point through.
| | Second, implementing this suggestion will not solve any problems. For one thing,
it is so easy to get around. If sellers risk losing an entire order they spent
time picking and packing merely because of one or two missing penny parts, they
just won't file an Item Removal Request.
|
I think eileenkeeney put it quite nicely:
| | In Suggestions, eileenkeeney writes:
| | First, there should be a requirement that sellers notify buyers if not shipping
everything ordered, and a requirement to use the Item Removal request.
Maybe there should be a "Seller did not follow Bricklink policy" submission,
that a seller is only allowed so many of, before a temporary loss of selling
privileges.
Then along with that add the option to Cancel order, as a response to a seller
initiated Item Removal Request.
|
|
To me, it is *extremely* frustrating when sellers write PM's with what is
missing from my orders. Most of the time I do not care about what is missing.
What I care about is to have *accurate* order details, so I can rely to that
info when I am a) editing my wanted lists and b) checking orders, as I do it
outside BL. When I have to manually address that, it means wasting *a lot* of
time, and the possibility to introduce mistakes in my lists. One or two orders
- no biggie. Dozens of orders with dozens of "corrections" that I have to make
myself - HOURS of wasted time.
I completely agree, sellers must be obliged to submit IRRs.
| | Third, I do not believe buyers should be able to cancel an entire order if something
is missing. Because, in my case at least, it is not necessary to cancel the order.
If the buyer really needs that missing item, I will order it from another seller
and have it shipped directly to the buyer at my expense. Thus, the buyer loses
nothing.
My policy with missing items is to let the buyer know as soon as I know something
is missing and then offer the buyer three choices to resolve the matter: (1)
A refund or credit for double the value of the missing item(s); (2) a coupon
for triple the amount of the missing item(s); or, if neither of those options
are acceptable to the buyer, (3) I will order the missing item(s) from another
seller and have them shipped directly to my buyer at my expense. This third option
makes the buyer whole. It makes it unnecessary for the buyer to order the item
elsewhere and pay more shipping costs. And the item can be received around the
same time his order with me is received.
If I am willing to make my buyer whole and provide him everything he ordered,
there is no reason he should be allowed to cancel his entire order with me. Particularly
if we are taking about a large order with numerous lots that I have spent time
on.
I suspect many other good sellers feel and do the same as I do. They should not
be penalized if they are able to make the buyer whole.
|
Foster.. First - how you deal with this is completely irrelevant in this
discussion. But if we follow your logic then we also do not need NRS and NSS
because you will never do any wrong to any buyer, therefore NRS or NSS
options is an overkill, unnecessary and ineffective.
Suggestion is about sellers who are not as brand spanking awesome as you are,
but about those who are not. Because right now there is nothing to stop them
from abusing their buyers, and other sellers too (this is a bit of a long shot
regarding other sellers, but put your mind to it and you should figure it out)
Third. I am first and foremost a seller, so why would I be digging my
own grave? Contrary to what you might think, I never take sides in any argument
when it comes to suggestions. I am looking at the system as a whole, and this
would apply to me just as much as to other sellers. The way it is now, sellers
have full power to do with their customers' orders whatever they want, and
the buyer is next to powerless.
| | BTW, I am aware that many European sellers are subject to the Distance Selling
Regulations which require them to accept order cancellations and returns. Fortunately,
the DSR does not apply to US sellers and there is no similar law in the USA.
Thor
|
This suggestion has nothing to do with Distance Selling Regulations. I am not
talking about buyers right to cancel any order (my personal opinion is that buyers
should not have that right). I am talking about buyer's right to cancel an
order, when seller is not willing/unable to supply the full order.
I will repeat this one again just for you. I am talking about buyer's
right to cancel an order, when seller is not willing/unable to supply the
full order.
P.S. as was noted to me in a PM... no I do not have any illusions for this, or
for just about any suggestion to be implemented in BL1  All this is for the
dev team to take a look and analyze now. So if I suggest this once BL2 turns
out, I wont get an answer "ou, ay, why havent you said anything earlier? We
need to re-code half of BL2 to implement this" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lithuania, Panevėžys
United Kingdom, England
USA, New Hampshire
