| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Teup  | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Refusing to sell or ship because of location. | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
| In Problem, mcmcmahan writes:
| | "If you are unwilling to ship to every Bricklink
user then you need to leave and sell your wares elsewhere"
|
You mean every seller has to ship to every user? How about Bricklink simply showing
correctly whether the seller ships to you or not? Seems like a more feasible
solution to me.
|
 |
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 13:00 | | Subject: | Re: IC and maximum Volume | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Shipping | |
| In Shipping, cosmicray writes:
| | Shipping Methods currently have the ability specify a maximum volume.
In the USA, that might be used to trap orders that require dimensional shipping
(i.e. greater than 1728 cubic-inches). Some orders contain multiple items, and
the cumulative weight is less important than the fact that dimensional will require
a higher dimensional weight (and corresponding rate).
I suspect, that I can put a maximum volume on a shipping method (to satisfy those
with non-dimensional requirements) and implement a fall-back shipping method
with the same group number.
The problem that arises is, there is no way (that I can see) to specify the conversion
from volume (in cubic inches) divided by 166 to arrive at a dimensional weight
(in pounds), which could then be sorted out by the weight bands. Nor can I use
a volume band to directly apply the volume calculation,
Any thoughts ?
Nita Rae
|
How many "volume bands" do you need? You could consider making a separate shipping
method for each one and put them in the same group.
When you work with volumes, keep in mind "Bricklink volume" is some 50-70% of
real-life volume. I had to reduce the volume of the method by about half to get
orders that just fit.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 04:23 | | Subject: | Re: Parts smelling like cigarette smoke still new | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Selling | |
| In Selling, CSC writes:
| | Would you and/or Bricklink consider parts/minifigs that smell like smoke new?
It is not just a bit of a smell, it is horrible on each minifig I ordered.
I also contacted the seller after placing the order that he should not send the
items if they smell like smoke as I saw that in his feedback. The seller never
responded but shipped the parts AFTER I sent my message.
Any ideas on how to handle this?
Thanks
|
In my experience the smell is gone within like 2 weeks. I once bought a huge
batch of plastic bags from an excessive smoker for packing lego, it smelled horrible
but even that was fine eventually, I am still using those and they just smell
like plastic now.
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 25, 2021 04:07 | | Subject: | Re: When are you going to reopen my store? | | Viewed: | 124 times | | Topic: | Problem | |
| In Problem, Dino1 writes:
| | Hello Bricklink!
When are you going to reopen my store?
I have always paid my dues. The last payment was on 08/05 for the July contribution.
Until you issue a tax correct invoice, I am not obligated to pay taxes on it.
I pointed this out on the forum over a year ago. By the way, Bricklink's
accounting seems to be in a desolate state. My total of 4 payments were not taken
into account and are always re-invoiced, although I have pointed out the first
2 payments additionally by e-mail.
In addition, I expect the immediate deletion of the note "Reason: non-payment
of fees" on the store page.
This is a lie and also damaging to my reputation. Such a thing is illegal.
Regards
Werner
|
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1312127
Why do you repost if you didn't answer that?
|
|
| Author: | Teup | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2021 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: BUGS in Distance selling / OSS | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, jbricks writes:
| | A bit of a confusing answer.
Removing B2B sales would be an amazingly designerror.
|
In reply to this point which I also made:
Actually I think I was wrong and the problem is of a slightly different nature:
You can't "remove" B2B sales as such, B2B transactions are a fact of life.
Fact 1: When a business buys from another business, they have a legal right to
an invoice.
Fact 2: And the correct way of invoicing businesses in other EU countries, is
by charging 0% VAT.
Conclusion: It is not a separate optional service, it's simply the correct
way of doing it*
In other words:
Bricklink's choice is not whether or not to allow B2B selling, but whether
their VAT stats (and features around it) are going to reflect reality or not.
If they are going to go with this design error, it simply means that sellers
need to add a credit and do their correct administration outside of Bricklink
(which is a smart thing to do anyway, I would never trust Bricklink - again proven
right). Any VAT amounts that Bricklink indicates over a period of selling is
just going to be inaccurate, as it includes VAT in B2B sales that wasn't
there.
* This is what a specialised employee of the tax agency told me, but they do
make mistakes, so I'm about 80% sure this is correct
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
