BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

(Cancelled)

I wouldn't even wait for a reply from the seller. Start a PayPal claim and
get your money back. Seller openly says in their terms that they're not selling
LEGO (which is what you bought) and won't check to see if the parts are genuine
or not. Read their feedback.

Store needs to be closed. If I have the couple parts you need message me and
ill ship them to you.

Author:

Brick_Qc

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 10:06

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

79 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

I placed a $5.00 order (see attachment). I checked the Store Terms before I paid
and I was fine with the $1.00 fee to cover PayPal and BrickLink fees that were
mentioned in the terms (see attachment). I didn't think about it again until
this morning when I realized I was charged a $7.00 "Additional Charge".

I think this charge is excessive especially since it isn't disclosed in the
Store Terms. I've messaged the seller a short time ago. He hasn't had
much time to respond. So, I wanted to get feedback from more experienced users.

Is this okay? Should I request to cancel the order if he doesn't offer to
refund $6.00 of the $7.00? How would you handle the situation?

Patience is a virtue. At this point I would give the seller a chance to respond
rather than post about it in the forum.

I merely asked for advice and opinions. I didn't identify the seller's
store, nor did I say anything negative about the seller, or his store. I don't
plan to take any action until I get a response from the seller.

Are you saying that I shouldn't ask for advice on the forum?

The store's info is on your screen capture.

BTW, the store has 59 orders in the last 6 months, got 10 positive FB, 1 neutral
and one negative...WOW

Author:

scurry64

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:58

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Patience is a virtue. At this point I would give the seller a chance to respond
rather than post about it in the forum.

Author:

brickerking

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:45

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Patience is a virtue. At this point I would give the seller a chance to respond
rather than post about it in the forum.

Author:

psusaxman2000

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:43

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

If you think it is excessive, then why did you pay it?

Either query it BEFORE paying it or live with it. Don't pay for an order
agreeing to the charges then complain about the amount paid afterwards.

My guess is that it is an issue with the way the seller setup the rule and it
is per lot as others have mentioned.

I thought I was paying a $1.00 fee, not a $7.00 fee.

Author:

scurry64

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:39

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

I thought I was paying a $1.00 fee, not a $7.00 fee.

Author:

edk

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:39

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

I see the $1 mentioned but nothing else to add another $6. I for sure would Not
pay a $7 fee . It sounds like a valid reason to cancel per BL site terms. I also
agree with another comment regarding selling non lego parts.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:32

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Author:

scurry64

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:10

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Is it possible that it was a $1.00 fee per lot if the lot is under $1.00?
You have seven lots and the additional fee is $7.00 so it works out.

I agree that the fee is excessive in any case. Unfortunately buyers don't
have a lot of power where order cancellation is concerned.

Wow I just had a look at the seller's terms. Openly admitting that you don't
bother checking whether your parts are Lego or not?

Yeah. He's definitely going on my "Dislike" list.

Author:

tons_of_bricks

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:10

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Wow I just had a look at the seller's terms. Openly admitting that you don't
bother checking whether your parts are Lego or not?

That should get their store banned, as this is a Lego only site.

Author:

scurry64

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:08

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Is it possible that it was a $1.00 fee per lot if the lot is under $1.00?
You have seven lots and the additional fee is $7.00 so it works out.

I agree that the fee is excessive in any case. Unfortunately buyers don't
have a lot of power where order cancellation is concerned.

Here is a direct quote from the seller's Store Terms and Conditions:

"PayPal/ Brick Owl charges fees. In order to make up for those and the cost
of shipping materials, there will always be a $1.00 fee added on all orders less
than $1,000."

I can't wrap my head around a $7.00 fee on a $5.00 order.

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:06

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

63 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Wow I just had a look at the seller's terms. Openly admitting that you don't
bother checking whether your parts are Lego or not?

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Feb 17, 2022 09:00

Subject:

Re: Excessive Fee?

Viewed:

88 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, scurry64 writes:

Author:

1001bricks

Posted:

Feb 4, 2022 14:39

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Oh crap, I forgot to NOT question the government. Guess I should expect a visit
from the Gestapo, I mean FBI...

Be happy to *only* have the FBI.

Please don't compare having a flu and a cancer

Sylvain

Author:

ElvisandBane

Posted:

Feb 4, 2022 14:07

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

Oh crap, I forgot to NOT question the government. Guess I should expect a visit
from the Gestapo, I mean FBI...

In Terms and Policies, legomalego writes:

Please do not ask questions.

Please pay the tax on the tax on the tax.

A friendly message from your local government.

Remember, please do not ask questions.

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Feb 4, 2022 05:34

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, TallyToyBricks writes:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Different States have different rules. Florida taxes shipping (and all other
charges required for delivery).

Florida collects sales tax on shipping ... but only if you offer one carrier.
If you offer two or more, it's not-taxable.

Nita Rae

Author:

CPgolfaddict

Posted:

Feb 4, 2022 00:38

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

When states didn't tax shipping people would charge $0.50 for something and
ask $200.00 for shipping.

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Author:

TallyToyBricks

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 21:20

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Different States have different rules. Florida taxes shipping (and all other
charges required for delivery).

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 18:15

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

71 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, popsicle writes:

In Terms and Policies, randyf writes:

In Terms and Policies, 1001bricks writes:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

RandyF would say "I think you need to take up the issue
with your governments instead of here in the BrickLink forums."

I'm sorry, but I guess BL made it how it should work, by Law?

Exactly! Take it up with the US government!

State government

Ah, very true. Thanks for the correction.

Author:

popsicle

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 17:59

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, randyf writes:

In Terms and Policies, 1001bricks writes:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

RandyF would say "I think you need to take up the issue
with your governments instead of here in the BrickLink forums."

I'm sorry, but I guess BL made it how it should work, by Law?

Exactly! Take it up with the US government!

State government

Author:

1001bricks

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 17:53

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

64 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

BL is LEGO now. Be sure they've pro staff dedicated to make it work how it's
supposed to work according to Laws.

In short, I guess it's as it as to be - and sorry

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 17:48

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, 1001bricks writes:

In Terms and Policies, ElvisandBane writes:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

RandyF would say "I think you need to take up the issue
with your governments instead of here in the BrickLink forums."

I'm sorry, but I guess BL made it how it should work, by Law?

Exactly! Take it up with the US government!

Author:

legomalego

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 17:47

Subject:

Re: Sales tax

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Author:

ElvisandBane

Posted:

Feb 3, 2022 17:43

Subject:

Sales tax

Viewed:

204 times

Topic:

Why is shipping, shipping insurance and fees taxed? Bad enough buyers are now
charged sales tax on something previously taxed but it seems grossly unfair to
tax non-retail expenses.

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 12:32

Subject:

Re: Item deleted for being Counterfit...

Viewed:

89 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:

I just had a transparent-clear minifgure torso in my inventory deleted for being
"counterfeit"... despite there being an image of a trans-clear torso in the catalog
listing for the part! Gee wilickers, who's verifying these reports and deleting
items?

That said, I appreciate bricklink's moderators keeping the site relatively
clear of inaccurate listings and illegal items, I just think this case was a
tad absurd.

973 Torso Plain
Parts: Minifigure, Torso

I think it boils down to a basic question ... are they being represented as legitimate
parts manufactured by TLG or are they being made elsewhere (and not being disclosed
as such) ?

When TLG purchased BL, one of the very first things they did was to shut down
sales of non-TLG parts here. So they all have to be original TLG sourced parts
(to be sold here).

Having said that, some elements may have passed the date of patent protection,
so there isn't any real illegal activity, so long as you do not try to pass
them off as TLG produced. If someone made (for example) 1x1 bricks in irregular
colors, and sold them as 'compatible', they might be OK (on some other
site).

I am aware of some compatible parts, that were never made by TLG. Some of them
have been seen in little sets sold at various dollar stores. I own several examples
of 16x16 plates, of high quality, in colors never produced by TLG.

There may be a day coming, when not-TLG-bricks.com will be a thing.

Nita Rae

Author:

crazylegoman

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 09:29

Subject:

Re: Item deleted for being Counterfit...

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:

973 Torso Plain
Parts: Minifigure, Torso

I see what you mean. If Bricklink is going to remove all listing for transparent
MF parts, then they need to also remove the images of transparent MF parts.

David

Author:

Brick_Qc

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 04:29

Subject:

Re: Reporting a store

Viewed:

82 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, tonnic writes:

In Terms and Policies, Coren666 writes:

Hi all
If I believe a store is breaking the rules (soliciting payment and maybe even
sales outside of Bricklink), where does one report that?
Thanks in advance

Hi,

I am a bit curious why a seller could or should not sell outside of Bricklink
in your opinion.
A lot of sellers sell on Brick🦉, *bay, in the Netherlands on Marktplaats etc.
There are even buyers here that sell on Marktplaats.
All of these are not forbidden as long as it is not standing in the way of being
a good seller.

It could be that they attract buyers on Bricklink and finalise the sale elsewhere
to skip paying Bricklink's fees.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 03:58

Subject:

Re: Item deleted for being Counterfit...

Viewed:

80 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:

973 Torso Plain
Parts: Minifigure, Torso

Some people have been producing minifigure parts in non production colours and
selling them for large sums to monochrome collectors. This at least stops their
sale on a lego owned platform. Of course, there are still underground sales on
Facebook and elsewhere until they can identify the person(s) making the illegitimate
parts.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 03:52

Subject:

Re: Reporting a store

Viewed:

68 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, tonnic writes:

In Terms and Policies, Coren666 writes:

Hi all
If I believe a store is breaking the rules (soliciting payment and maybe even
sales outside of Bricklink), where does one report that?
Thanks in advance

Hi,

I am a bit curious why a seller could or should not sell outside of Bricklink
in your opinion.

If they are advertusing on or otherwise using bricklink to drive those sales
away from bricklink then it is breaking the rules.

Author:

tonnic

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 03:38

Subject:

Re: Reporting a store

Viewed:

61 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Coren666 writes:

Hi all
If I believe a store is breaking the rules (soliciting payment and maybe even
sales outside of Bricklink), where does one report that?
Thanks in advance

Author:

beaverbrick

Posted:

Jan 13, 2022 03:01

Subject:

Re: Reporting a store

Viewed:

64 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Coren666 writes:

Hi all
If I believe a store is breaking the rules (soliciting payment and maybe even
sales outside of Bricklink), where does one report that?
Thanks in advance

You can report a member here... (note you need the members username, not the
store name)
https://www.bricklink.com/problemMember.asp

You can get to that screen using the Problem Center link at the bottom of all
pages, then choosing Member.

You'll see there is a drop-down menu with various reasons for reporting the
member and a box where you can add additional information.

Author:

Nubs_Select

Posted:

Jan 12, 2022 22:51

Subject:

Re: Item deleted for being Counterfit...

Viewed:

105 times

Topic:

Perhaps in relation to this
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1322014

Author:

Yo_Yo_Flamingo

Posted:

Jan 12, 2022 22:30

Subject:

Item deleted for being Counterfit...

Viewed:

228 times

Topic:

973 Torso Plain
Parts: Minifigure, Torso

Author:

Coren666

Posted:

Jan 12, 2022 19:48

Subject:

Reporting a store

Viewed:

177 times

Topic:

Hi all
If I believe a store is breaking the rules (soliciting payment and maybe even
sales outside of Bricklink), where does one report that?
Thanks in advance

Author:

leggodtshop

Posted:

Jan 11, 2022 01:25

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Dino1 writes:

In Terms and Policies, patpendlego writes:

In Terms and Policies, Shiny_Stuff writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

And I juuuuust figured that out. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.
Thank you! I'm going to leave this up in case someone else is an idiot and
misses that major detail.

One little detail that may or may not be important to anyone:

BrickLink does collect the sales tax on our behalf. AND they keep ALL OF IT.
There is no percentage of the sales tax for the actual seller -- only for
BrickLink, since they do the actual collecting and remitting to the tax collectors.

However, it is the actual SELLERS on BrickLink who get stuck paying the Paypal
fee on that entire tax amount. So whatever percentage of fee you are paying
to Paypal to process the payments, you are also paying that fee on the sales
tax money that you never even see.

If I am wrong about this, someone please say so. I would love to be wrong on
this.

____

You guys are all in the US, so its at least your own country. However I am in
The NL and have nothing to do with US State Sales Tax whatsoever! Nevertheless
a sale to PA results in a PA Sales Tax on my account! PayPal fee to pay on it
too. Ridiculous.

Thay do the same for "our" import tax.

Yeah I know. What a ridiculous system. Local taxes traveling all over the world
into accounts of people who have nothing to do with it and no control over but
pay fees on it. Well, to "soften" the blow a tiny bit I can deduct the fee (as
cost) from my income and pay a little less income tax. How did they come up with
it...

Author:

Dino

Posted:

Jan 11, 2022 01:03

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, patpendlego writes:

In Terms and Policies, Shiny_Stuff writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

And I juuuuust figured that out. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.
Thank you! I'm going to leave this up in case someone else is an idiot and
misses that major detail.

Thay do the same for "our" import tax.

Author:

leggodtshop

Posted:

Jan 11, 2022 00:15

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Shiny_Stuff writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

And I juuuuust figured that out. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.
Thank you! I'm going to leave this up in case someone else is an idiot and
misses that major detail.

Author:

CALBrickLAB

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 23:22

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

64 times

Topic:

Yes, you have to pay the fee on everything that is processed through your account
on PayPal. The same as when a store has to pay the transactions fees for the
entirety of every credit card transaction. For example, for in person sales I
use Square. I add the sales tax, paying the percentage to Square on the entire
thing. Then I go to my state sales tax return and enter all sales, minus online
marketplace sales (BrickLink), minus other sales sales outside my state, minus
shipping, minus sales tax collected, and it tells me how much sales tax I owe.
This should equal the amount I collected, but the cost of doing business on credit
cards is that I lost a percentage of that to the service fee.

BrickLink does collect the sales tax on our behalf. AND they keep ALL OF IT.
There is no percentage of the sales tax for the actual seller -- only for
BrickLink, since they do the actual collecting and remitting to the tax collectors.

However, it is the actual SELLERS on BrickLink who get stuck paying the Paypal
fee on that entire tax amount. So whatever percentage of fee you are paying
to Paypal to process the payments, you are also paying that fee on the sales
tax money that you never even see.

If I am wrong about this, someone please say so. I would love to be wrong on
this.

____

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 20:06

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Shiny_Stuff writes:

However, it is the actual SELLERS on BrickLink who get stuck paying the Paypal
fee on that entire tax amount. So whatever percentage of fee you are paying
to Paypal to process the payments, you are also paying that fee on the sales
tax money that you never even see.

If I am wrong about this, someone please say so. I would love to be wrong on
this.

You are correct but this is also true of the popular auction site - you pay the
12.55% fee on the sales tax they collect. It might be true of Etsy as well.

Author:

Shiny_Stuff

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 20:01

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

And I juuuuust figured that out. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.
Thank you! I'm going to leave this up in case someone else is an idiot and
misses that major detail.

Author:

BrickLady314

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 18:32

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

And I juuuuust figured that out. I thought I was losing my mind for a minute.
Thank you! I'm going to leave this up in case someone else is an idiot and
misses that major detail.

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 18:30

Subject:

Re: Sales Tax

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickLady314 writes:

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal.

It isn't - it's being deducted as a "Partner Fee"

Author:

BrickLady314

Posted:

Jan 10, 2022 18:27

Subject:

Sales Tax

Viewed:

148 times

Topic:

I'm doing my business accounting for both of my businesses. I have an Etsy
store and this BrickLink store. On Etsy, they collect and remit sales tax for
every state except Missouri where I am located. The Missouri taxes I collect
and remit along with my regular sales tax payments.

I'm just realizing that in the 2 months I've been making sales on Bricklink
that all the sales tax collected is actually coming to me in Paypal. I've
had zero in-state sales so I didn't think I needed to remit sales tax but
I have sales tax in my account for all these other states. I have no idea even
where to begin remitting those taxes. Am I missing something? Is there a setting
I don't have correct? What do I do with all this sales tax money???

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 10:44

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Ellum writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Not sure if this is the correct or best subject group to place this in but here
goes anyway.

We recently had an invoice paid directly through PayPal, bypassing Bricklink.
We are unable to mark it as paid and we don't want Bricklink to be shorted
the fees associated with this invoice. We contacted an admin that thought we
would need to refund the payment and ask the customer to pay again through Bricklink,
but we're hoping to avoid this if possible. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

So, we refunded the customer their money and requested that they pay through
Bricklink via the invoice (we've had 1,150 orders to present with this never
happening before!). They paid, again, directly to us in PayPal, again bypassing
BrickLink. It seems we remember that we could change the status of an invoice
from "Pending" to "Paid" but that option no longer is available. We're trying
to do the right thing but not sure how the customer is bypassing BrickLink. Any
Thoughts? Thanks in Advance!

Try setting status to Ready first. Then the Paid option might be available afterwards.

Yes!!!!!!!! Thank you so very much!

Author:

Adjour

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 09:20

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

This happened to me before. The buyer kept insisting they weren't doing it
that way yet three tries and it kept skipping bl like like direct paypal payment.Someone
on the forum suggested that older operating systems had older versions of things
like paypal which was causing the issue. I'm paraphrasing because I don't
recall details, but that did end up being the problem.

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 06:58

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:
So, we refunded the customer their money and requested that they pay through

Bricklink via the invoice (we've had 1,150 orders to present with this never
happening before!). They paid, again, directly to us in PayPal, again bypassing
BrickLink. It seems we remember that we could change the status of an invoice
from "Pending" to "Paid" but that option no longer is available. We're trying
to do the right thing but not sure how the customer is bypassing BrickLink. Any
Thoughts? Thanks in Advance!

Is it possible if you separate payment status from order status on the Orders
page (this also has an effect on the "Edit Order" page)? Alternately, perhaps
you could credit the customer for the amount he or she has already paid directly
through PayPal, and re-send the invoice?

Author:

Brickwilbo

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 05:17

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Separate the payment status from the order status in the settings of the orders
received page.

Author:

Ellum

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 03:49

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Try setting status to Ready first. Then the Paid option might be available afterwards.

Author:

SezaR

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 02:53

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

This gives you another opportunity to consider my tip for the future!

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 02:49

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

[…]
So, we refunded the customer their money and requested that they pay through
Bricklink via the invoice (we've had 1,150 orders to present with this never
happening before!). They paid, again, directly to us in PayPal, again bypassing
BrickLink. It seems we remember that we could change the status of an invoice
from "Pending" to "Paid" but that option no longer is available. We're trying
to do the right thing but not sure how the customer is bypassing BrickLink. Any
Thoughts? Thanks in Advance!

You can’t set an order with Onsite Payment to Paid. It’s a technical block:
the site won’t allow you.

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 01:40

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 10, 2021 01:34

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

One way to solve this, is to go 100% Instant Checkout. That way, the buyer has
to make payment along with the order being created.

Nita Rae

Thank you very much!

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 16:10

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

One way to solve this, is to go 100% Instant Checkout. That way, the buyer has
to make payment along with the order being created.

Nita Rae

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 12:54

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

73 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, firestar246 writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

You're most likely going to have to do that, especially if they ordered from
a state that BL collects tax on.

Thank you for your help!

Author:

tons_of_bricks

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 12:27

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

You're most likely going to have to do that, especially if they ordered from
a state that BL collects tax on.

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 12:17

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, SezaR writes:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Buyers can see your email address in the invoice. This is why I use a different
email for my paypal. This way, if a buyer intend to send a payment using that
email address, the payment does not go through because no PayPal account is associated
with it.

Thank you, we will consider this for the future.

Author:

SezaR

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 12:09

Subject:

Re: Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, BrickWYBrick writes:

Author:

BrickWYBrick

Posted:

Dec 9, 2021 11:40

Subject:

Invoice paid directly through PayPal

Viewed:

150 times

Topic:

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Dec 1, 2021 10:16

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, bricksinbins writes:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

If it is packaged adequately (seller's responsibility) it won't get damaged,
if it is addressed properly (seller's responsibility) and sent by a reputable
carrier (seller's responsibility) with any necessary documentation attached
(seller's responsibility) then it should arrive.

Yes it *should*. But don't tell me you are so naive as to believe it always
does. The Postal service lose mail, sometimes even deliberately. There have been
cases where the mail man has simply just dumped the mail load into the trash
somewhere. And don't forget that they don't give much guarantee that
your mail will be delivered.

With that said, yes the seller is ultimately responsible for the buyer receiveing
the goods they paid for.

Of course I am not naive to believe every piece of mail gets there. But I know
almost all does, and that I would not pay about an extra 5-10% of the cost of
goods being sent each time I order for insurance for something that happens way
under 1% of the times. Especially for smaller orders, when (here in UK) a seller
can get a free proof of posting that allows them to claim for any losses up to
£20.

It wouldn't surprise me if sellers not sending orders or making mistakes
in addressing them occurs more frequently than the item not arriving if correctly
addressed and posted.

Author:

bricksinbins

Posted:

Dec 1, 2021 09:00

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 14:17

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

I guess it comes down to: How many people actually shy away from Bricklink because
of it. And my estimation is that it's really a lot, and that Bricklink is
severely underestimating this problem. For hobbyists, who have patience for it,
it's of course better to have all these options - that's a no-brainer.
But my guess is that we could really see a lot more business here if Bricklink
became more accessible to the mainstream market if they simply set 1 standard
for all stores, a standard that people are already familiar with.

That may go at the expense of some hobbyists who like to set exotic terms (let's
assume for a moment they don't break the law), but in my experience, talking
to hobby sellers with strange terms, they are often actually quite willing to
adapt and are still learning the ropes. So for some of them, Bricklink forcing
them to have different terms is a help more than a limitation.

From talking to quite a few other AFOLs, both ones that use and don't use
BL, I don't think seller terms here are that much of a turn off. I think
these are all more important:
Out of date design,
difficult to use search / hard to find parts,
hard to use catalogue (similar to above),
a high learning barrier to place an order, especially if wants lists are needed,
difficulty in finding one seller with all the parts they want (wants lists again!),
so many unnecessary clicks to do something, such as having to select your own
country every time you search instead of being able to simply save this, ...

Imagine a new buyer wants to buy Drax's head. Wouldn't it be great to
be able to search for "Drax head" instead of knowing that they need to search
for (for example) "head red tattoos" (and definitely not "red tattoos head",
as that is different). Or find the minifigure then dig down into the inventory
to find it.

BL has a lot of great functionality when you know how to use it but is very difficult
to use if you just want to search for a few parts, get them from one seller
and be able to buy within 10 minutes. I think that is a far bigger turn off than
dodgy terms (from both hobbyist and professional sellers, it is not just hobby
sellers that have long, confusing or dodgy terms).

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 13:52

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

Started an identical thread bout this 2 weeks ago. The shipping terms are in
conflict with EU directive for consumers. Thats why BL should take ownership
of this.

BL already partly do, since all users must comply with local laws.

Refunds, shipping, all consumer rights, are often set by laws, stores on here
cannot invent their own terms. Better terms yes, lesser/worse terms no.

Sellers can invent whatever terms they like, but whether they are enforceable
is another matter (usually they are not).

Author:

Llewyn

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 12:18

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, SylvainLS writes:

I think BL is mostly aware of the first part… but their solution was XP & EasyBuy:
hide everything and then leave the buyer confused when they realize there’s actually
lots of sellers and they are all different and not policed/standardized.

I suppose, from what I've seen of it, that XP could be seen as a partial
solution to the "there's actually lots of sellers" problem by driving some
away

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 11:47

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

[…]
I guess it comes down to: How many people actually shy away from Bricklink because
of it. And my estimation is that it's really a lot, and that Bricklink is
severely underestimating this problem. For hobbyists, who have patience for it,
it's of course better to have all these options - that's a no-brainer.
But my guess is that we could really see a lot more business here if Bricklink
became more accessible to the mainstream market if they simply set 1 standard
for all stores, a standard that people are already familiar with.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 10:53

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

56 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, randyipp writes:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

Well, if they remove the whole terms system (as far as you can call it a "system"
at all.. it's just an empty textbox without any form of restriction), there
wouldn't be any need to do so. BrickOwl doesn't have this problem and
they have even fewer people working on it.

The only thing I don't like about Brick Owl is there is not real terms.
Even just for finding out things like how often a seller ships, or their policy
on missing items.

I'd rather have a non-policed terms section than to go without one completely,
I think that is a really poor solution.

Many customers in my webshop are people who are uncomfortable
buying on Bricklink. There's actually a physical Lego shop here in the country
that is referring their customers to my webshop for missing pieces, purely because
of the fact that Bricklink's terms are so erratic.

Author:

randyipp

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 10:42

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 09:59

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Poncke writes:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

I just came across the following:

"Insurance is optional and at buyer's expense but is highly recommended.
I will do everything in my power to make your order experience exceptional in
every way, but once the package is mailed, I have no control over and will not
be held responsible for loss of or damage to your package. I will do whatever
I can to help, but will not be able to refund any cost for a lost package."

This is misleading to customers. The store is liable for undelivered goods, and
thus, customers are not responsible for purchasing insurance.

Started an identical thread bout this 2 weeks ago. The shipping terms are in
conflict with EU directive for consumers. Thats why BL should take ownership
of this.

Refunds, shipping, all consumer rights, are often set by laws, stores on here
cannot invent their own terms. Better terms yes, lesser/worse terms no.

+1

I think posts about these kinds of things from completely new users like you
guys need to be taken extra seriously. Long term users represent the traditional
AFOL community, while new users represent today's consumer market - and that's
much bigger. The complaints that new users have such as these is exactly what
I hear from non-Bricklinkers in real life - and there are many of those. For
every one user that posts their frustrations in the forum, I for one am pretty
sure there's a whole bunch of others who did not even bother to do it.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 09:55

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, randyipp writes:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear to care.

Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.

Author:

Poncke

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 09:33

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

Author:

Macaronis

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 09:20

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

I think you missed out a word ...

Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
even
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.

Less from Nothing... you can not divide by zero in the first place...

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 08:59

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

I think you missed out a word ...

Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
even
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.

Author:

randyipp

Posted:

Nov 30, 2021 08:55

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

57 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear to care.

Not that I agree with Bricklink in this matter but can you imagine if they spent
less time working on the site and more time policing terms? Now that is a scary
thought.

Author:

infinibrix

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 21:34

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

To be clear, a seller must cover their costs of doing business, and turn a sufficient
profit, or they will cease to be in business. The question that arises is, what is the typical loss ratio and how does the seller deal with that.

and yet this is my point exactly.... It is not for the buyer to be responsible
for proping up the seller so as to ensure they make sufficent profits. It is
down to the seller to make the right choices and look at what needs to be done
to ensure their selling venture is profitable!

There is nothing to be ashamed of, with having to bundle a
small increase in shipping, to cover your losses. This is different than buying
insurance per package shipped. This is self insurance, and spreading the cost
of it across all orders.

Nita Rae

Yes and thats fine but I feel it pays to be as transaparent and forthcoming with
the buyer from the start wherever possible and by that I mean if two orders for
the exact same goods both cost £100 total

Its a much better overall experience for the buyer if their combined goods total
cost £90 and then £10 is added for shipping at checkout

Compared to paying £80 for the goods but then paying £10 shipping and then an
additonal £10 Insurance at checkout

The buyer is still paying £100 for their insured order its just one order has
a bigger unexpected surprise awaiting them at checkout!

Therefore I feel its better to try and incorporate any anticipated losses into
the sale price of your items rather than spreading it accross shipping/insurance
at the end but for many sellers position in the price guide is of more importance
than buyer transparency!

Author:

infinibrix

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 20:28

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

64 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:

It is impossible to factor in the cost of insurance and lost packages for a small
shop with small orders. How much do you add to the cost of $.05 brick to off-set
this? If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.

It's mostly a personal treat-others-as-you-would-like-to-be-treated kind
of thing. I am not alone in this either, there are plenty of people like me!
That's why I offered up another opinion about this matter.

Jen

Whether your a big corp or not makes no difference. The moment you decide to
sell an item to a member of the public you have a duty of care to make sure that
buyer receives what they paid for and its as simple as that. It is of no concern
to the buyer whether the seller makes a huge profit, a small profit or nothing
at all?

After all it is the seller that chooses to put something up for sale and beleive
me they don't do it out of the goodness of their heart they do it to make
money and the volume of sales and profit made is down to the seller making the
right choices.... a balancing act of charging the right prices for their items/service
whilst at the same time accepting a certain degree of risk/responsibility that
comes with shipping those items

Putting the onus back on the customer by insisting that on top of shipping they
should also pay additional insurance just to receive what they ordered is always
going to be a somewhat flawed way of doing things and does'nt give out the
right message!

Either way presumably the seller will only need to insure their high value orders
anyway and in which case surely the seller is already making good profit margins
on that particular order? enough to cover the insurance cost perhaps?? If they're
not making enough profit on high value orders then they are doing something wrong
which goes back to my suggestion of pricing your items appropriately in the first
place and not pricing yourself out the market just to get the sale!

So yes my comment regarding increasing overall prices to help cover the cost
of insurance was meant in relative terms in the sense that if increasing item
prices means a small hobby seller makes an extra £50 each month perhaps that
might be enough to cover the cost of the 5 or so transactions they feel the need
to insure each month?

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 12:37

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:

The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.

To be clear, a seller must cover their costs of doing business, and turn a sufficient
profit, or they will cease to be in business. No matter how you slice baloney,
it's still baloney. The question that arises is, what is the typical loss
ratio and how does the seller deal with that. Some shipping methods (in the USA,
Priority Mail) come with limited indemnity coverage built in. I've heard
of some ePostage sites (e.g. Pirate Ship) offering a 3rd party insurance solution
that may be more affordable. You price your parts at what the market will bear.
Then you look at what it costs to ship a given order, and how often you will
experience claims. There is nothing to be ashamed of, with having to bundle a
small increase in shipping, to cover your losses. This is different than buying
insurance per package shipped. This is self insurance, and spreading the cost
of it across all orders.

Nita Rae

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 12:08

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

67 times

Topic:

If I was shopping at a small hobby shop, and I was worried about my package
arriving safely, I would definitely ask for and expect to pay the insurance.
Of course, I don't have to, but I don't think it's reasonable to
expect every individual who sets up and sells things online to have to behave
like a major corp. that can afford to cover unforeseen errors.

Why would a buyer need to worry about a package arriving?

If it is packaged adequately (seller's responsibility) it won't get damaged,
if it is addressed properly (seller's responsibility) and sent by a reputable
carrier (seller's responsibility) with any necessary documentation attached
(seller's responsibility) then it should arrive.

Especially when paypal tells buyers that paypal will refund the buyer if the
buyer doesn't get what they ordered, there is little incentive for a buyer
to choose to pay more for an unnecessary service when the seller doesn't
require them to.

Author:

Leftoverbricks

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 12:00

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:

In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:

In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:

If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.

I feel you are getting this the wrong way round because the buyer has already
helped the seller out by choosing to place an order in their store over other
stores. Coercing a buyer in with appealing prices only to then expect a buyer
to be responsible for further additional insurance on top regular shipping charges
should not be assumed/expected. The insurance is soley for the sellers own peace
of mind as they are responsible for making sure the package arrives and therefore
the seller must choose either to take the risk and go without insurance for a
better profit margin or allow the insurance cost to eat into some of their margin!
If the seller intends to play it safe and always include insurance then it would
be wise for them to incorporate some of that cost into the price of their items.

Well said!

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 29, 2021 11:51

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

63 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, infinibrix writes:

In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:

If a sellers happy to win an order using enticing pricing tactics then they need
to also take responsibility for ensuring the customer receives what they ordered.
Sellers can't have it both ways!

Author:

infinibrix

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 13:28

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

116 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, jennnifer writes:

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 13:11

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

73 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, tEoS writes:

How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.

Fishy perhaps, but it is the truth. A courier does not have a legal obligation
there, sellers do. When you pick insured shipping, they do have this responsibility.
(IMO postal services should at least always pay back the shipping cost if they
lose it though, since no service was provided)

Look at it from another perspective: Thanks to the availability of uninsured
postal products at all, sellers are able to save lots of money. It's always
better to insure it out of your own pocket than to buy insurance, since that
is a product, and on products they make profit after all.

Author:

jennnifer

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 11:59

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

77 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

Big stores and companies are liable in some countries. Every store and company
are liable in other countries. Some sellers here are just people selling extra
bricks. Paypal holds all sellers accountable for delivery up to a point.

If it's a little bitty store, why not help them out and purchase the insurance?
Or, if you don't like the terms, shop somewhere else? Buyers are not always
responsible for purchasing insurance, but I doubt they would like it very much
if the cost of insurance were automatically added to every order.

My point is that every circumstance is not the same here.

Good luck,
Jen

Author:

popsicle

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 11:48

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

120 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

The wording seems to be an attempt to thread-the-needle, awkwardly.

If a seller chooses to indemnify themselves in a transaction, it’s should be
at their own cost. If the buyer wishes to further indemnify the transaction,
the onus is on them. In other words, whichever party requires the added
peace-of-mind that is insurance, bears the cost of that added service.

Neither should be coerced.

-popsicle

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 11:39

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, tEoS writes:

How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.

You don't really want to open that can of worms, do you ?

The hard truth is, we need them more than they need us. They also have a much
better legal department, and they have rules that will be enforced.

A seller is eventually responsible (to some extent). If the seller can prove
that they shipped the correct item, and to the correct address, the payment service
might cover it. Some of that may also have to do with how often the seller has
claims against them.

Many sellers, and mostly involving international packages, lost claims during
2020, because shipping went kaboom during the pandemic. Right now, a small number
of countries are blocking arrivals from a few other countries. If that continues
to propagate outwards, then it will affect the number of airline flights, which
will impact air-cargo and mail. The next 30 days will be an interesting moment
in time.

As far as legal coverage, the two terms that are typically used are Force
Majure and FOB seller. The first speaks to unexpected and reasonably
unpredictable circumstances, while the second suggests that title transfers
to the buyer when it leaves the shipper's hands. Both could be overruled
by the payment service.

It's a mad mad mad mad world out there.

Nita Rae

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 11:27

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

If you don't get your items, complain to PayPal instead of the seller if
seller's terms deny any responsibility.

Author:

tEoS

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 11:17

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

Are you sure? I'm betting there are several legal loopholes, at least in
the USA.

How can the postal service disclaim liability for the one job they are paid to
do, but sellers cannot? Seems fishy.

BTW: I'm not claiming that it is a good selling practice.

In Terms and Policies, TempleOfBricks writes:

Just don't order from these stores..
Seller is always responsible

Author:

TempleOfBricks

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 10:12

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

82 times

Topic:

Just don't order from these stores..
Seller is always responsible

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 08:53

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

101 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, LeeGo73 writes:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

Perhaps the difference between C2C and B2C? Many sellers on Bricklink do this
as a hobby.

The common misconception is that it's the "C2" and "B2" part that matters
- when in reality it's the "2C" part

Because we're talking about rights
that consumers have, and not obligations that businesses have. Bricklink even
asks all sellers specifically to respect consumer rights in the terms, but then
it doesn't do anything to check whether they do or not.

The fact that Bricklink acts immediately if a US based seller charges PayPal
fees, but doesn't act at all if someone from another country violates the
regional PayPal terms is very telling. Bricklink only acts when an external party
is pressuring them to do it. And us demanding Bricklink to act fair and in accordance
with the law simply isn't enough pressure for them.

Author:

Dino

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 08:45

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

79 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

The same consumer rights do not apply everywhere in the world. Even in the small
country of Blokjeskoning, which is located in Europe, the rules are different
from those in the rest of Europe.

Author:

LeeGo73

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 08:39

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

88 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

Perhaps the difference between C2C and B2C? Many sellers on Bricklink do this
as a hobby.

Author:

Teup

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 08:07

Subject:

Re: Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

116 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, hTristan writes:

+1
I've raised the issue many times. Unfortunately Bricklink doesn't appear
to care.

IMO terms should be abolished and a simple series of allowed multiple choice
options together with a shipping table should be all a seller enters, just like
on BrickOwl.

Author:

hTristan

Posted:

Nov 28, 2021 07:41

Subject:

Why does Bricklink allow bogus shipping terms

Viewed:

366 times

Topic:

Author:

dcarmine

Posted:

Nov 20, 2021 14:06

Subject:

Re: Printed Leg Pieces

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

In Terms and Policies, dredabeast24 writes:

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=970pb01&name=Hips%20with%20Alpha%20Team%20Arctic%20Silver%20Fade%20Pockets%20Pattern&category=%5BMinifigure,%20Body%20Part%5D#T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}

I came across this while listing pieces today. Why are these items being removed
from the catalog?

Thanks!

Andreas

Because they are damaged parts. Leg and hip assemblies are more fragile than
torso assemblies. Arms and hands can be removed and reused on other torsos. When
legs are removed from hips, the little blob that holds the legs tight gets damaged.
The legs are then very loose. It also adds another three parts to the catalogue
for every printed leg/hip assembly, and those parts rarely sell.

How do you know they rarely sell? They've never been available for purchase
and the few that did make it is not a big enough sample to know that they don't
sell. I have some that I would like to list and I was hoping that it would continue
but now it's gone again. I have some that I would like to buy but they're
not available. I disagree with the idea that they're broken once they're
taken apart. I've broken just as many arms on torsos taking them apart. I've
put legs back together and they weren't wobbly. That's ridiculous. Adding
three more parts to the catalog? Torsos add 4. I don't see the difference.

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 20, 2021 03:46

Subject:

Re: Printed Leg Pieces

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, dredabeast24 writes:

Author:

Hexy

Posted:

Nov 20, 2021 03:44

Subject:

Re: Printed Leg Pieces

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

Please read the note below the image of the part

In Terms and Policies, dredabeast24 writes:

Author:

dredabeast24

Posted:

Nov 20, 2021 03:35

Subject:

Printed Leg Pieces

Viewed:

75 times

Topic:

Author:

Brickwilbo

Posted:

Nov 17, 2021 17:22

Subject:

Re: Does changing store terms send notifications?

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, b.b.beyond writes:

Hi,

I'm curious if changing the terms, splash, or shipping pages sends out any
kind of notifications to users. I don't want people getting spammed with
messages every time I make small, incremental changes to these things.

Thanks,

-BB&B

No, it doesn't.

Author:

b.b.beyond

Posted:

Nov 17, 2021 16:47

Subject:

Does changing store terms send notifications?

Viewed:

79 times

Topic:

Author:

yorbrick

Posted:

Nov 9, 2021 07:58

Subject:

Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

In Terms and Policies, yorbrick writes:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

In Terms and Policies, gogogovro writes:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller...

You lost me at "give the seller". I believe BL only makes changes based on what
they can give the buyer. I could be wrong.

When a seller goes thru the NPB procedure, they (the seller) gets coverage against
a negative FB left by the buyer. I'm suggesting a similar coverage when the
buyer requests to walk away from a valid order (that they never should have initiated
in the first place).

Nita Rae

If things are changed so that there is a way of punishing the buyer if they initiate
a cancellation, then buyers will do their best to avoid using it. If a buyer
places an IC order (and obviously pays) and then decides that they want to cancel,
then they could ask to cancel but if they know they are going to get negative
feedback because of it, or a strike for doing it, then they will do their best
to get the seller to initiate the cancellation instead. So expect:

Hi seller, I no longer want this order. Can you cancel it. If you do not, I will
refuse the package (under my legal rights) and it will be returned to you. So
either cancel it now, or you can pay to post it and have it returned to you in
a few weeks. You can then refund the full amount to me once it is returned. You
will have your inventory tied up all that time, and you will pay for the postage
costs. Or just cancel it now.

What wins out, the principle of the matter or the least troublesome route?

What wins out is the process that results in buyers wanting to do that little
or never.

The problem, as I tried to explain, goes beyond merely canceling the order ...
canceling those order goes against the BL ToS and (as of a year ago) costs sellers
real money. The buyer gets off with no loss of money, and nothing to suggest
they not do that again.

Then we get into the entire issue of feedback.

Yeah, I agree the real kick in the teeth is the payment of paypal fees on an
order that is cancelled. As you noted, the two step payment procedure would be
much better here. Pre-auth at the time of placing the IC order then payment collection
at the time the seller marks the order packed or dispatched.

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Nov 9, 2021 07:42

Subject:

Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Terms and Policies, Teup writes:

In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:

On this Help Page ...
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=79

It says ...

Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink does not tolerate. Buyer should make sure he or she wants to buy the items before submitting an order, not after. After an order is submitted, the buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the seller to purchase all items in that order.

is an Invalid Reason for a buyer to request cancellation.

It also says that ...

Buyer no longer wants to purchase items

Is a valid reason for a Seller to cancel an order.

The primary reason for the first part very likely has to do with buyers hitting
the buy button before they took the time to read the listing (and especially
the extended description).

That policy was put into effect before IC came into widespread use, and before
the payment services began retaining the payment fees (and costing the seller
for doing a refund). Other than negative feedback, there is no penalty towards
buyers who violate the Invalid Reason on their side.

Have we arrived at the point where buyers need to be reminded why they should
not place orders they will ask to cancel the morning after ?

My thoughts (partially formed) is for something like a BRC (Buyers Remorse Cancellation)
procedure. That would give the seller feedback coverage, and would remind the
buyer that they get a limited number of strikes before they lose their buying
privileges. Currently, other than the prohibition in the Help Center, there is
no penalty for bailing on an order (and many sellers are reluctant to leave feedback
because of retaliation).

There is the additional consideration in this entire issue, that implementing
a split authorize/capture on the payments will lessen the burden on the seller.
But it will not change buyer behavior.

Nita Rae

Yeah, I agree we need something better than the feedback system. It works a little
bit like this on BrickOwl; non-payments get marked on the buyer's account.
I think that's great (however, the adminstration doesn't do much with
it in terms of how many strikes you get. But they could).

As for the legal aspect: The whole paragraph about "legally binding contract"
is utter gibberish and Bricklink is aware of that - but as with many issues,
they simply do not care. They never change anything as long as there's no
institution outside of them pressuring them to change. On the one hand, Bricklink
explicitly asks/forces sellers to respect consumer rights (which for EU, UK and
to the best of my knowledge US consumers means the right to cancel or return
a purchase for a full refund), on the other hand they add a silly illegal paragraph
like that, making themselves the biggest rule breaker.

Then we solve that problem, by removing the monetary penalty on the sellers ...
implement the two-step (authorize then capture) that I suggested not long ago.
30-cents (which is the cost for the authorize, without capture), I can live with.
It's the multi-dollar fees being lost on the refund that I cannot.

However, sellers have every right not liking the fact that a buyer used their
right. After all, this is not a webshop for board games, we're sorting thousands
of tiny products into an almost custom-made purchase for the buyer. So flagging
non-payments is very relevant. Rather than the convoluted negative feedback tool,
which can mean anything from "you didn't pay" to "you were rude" to "I'm
taking revenge on you" to "you didn't read my terms that include illegal
clauses", it would be much more informative if we could simply see how often
a buyer placed an order and then canceled.

Alongside other statistics, such as how often a buyer has claimed that an order
did not arrive. It's a similar situation. Actually it's pretty crazy
that we don't have access to that number. Right now, a scammer will get the
benefit of the doubt every single time. They could claim 1000 orders did not
arrive and nobody would even know. They may even get positive feedback for those
transactions for their "good communication" and a thousand sorries. Again, BrickOwl
has this statistic.

In short, the feedback system is flawed as we all now, and we really need statistics
to understand our buyers track records a little bit better. How often do we see
topics along the lines of "I have a buyer that does so and so, would you trust
it?" and we all go and speculate whether it's a good guy or a bad guy sharing
some anecdotal experiences. The great thing about all being connected to one
platform is that we should have a wealth of statistics. But since Bricklink never
improves until it is forced to, none of that is being put to use...

My instinctive response is that any order canceled by mutual consent should
be exempt from any feedback (in either direction). That would clear the deck,
and allow both sides to back off and stand still. Feedback should be reserved
for real orders that had real results, not for make believe orders, that got
tossed in the recycle bin.

Nita Rae

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Nov 9, 2021 07:33

Subject:

Re: Buyer's Remorse order cancelleations

Viewed:

31 times

Topic: