Just had one, didn't invoice until nrs was filed then added a $.70 fee to order
(and charged $5 to ship a minifig torso and a minifig briefcase). I don't see
this seller lasting very long anyway and I think most sellers that do that kind
of thing are in similar situations. That being said I still support the idea.
In Suggestions, Master_Jedi_Rob writes:
In Suggestions, legoman77 writes:
In Suggestions, Master_Jedi_Rob writes:
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
Good suggestion but that will not happen here.
John P
Why not?
I'm open to debate
I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks it's ok to use sneak-fees for
profit.
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
Good suggestion but that will not happen here.
John P
Why not?
I'm open to debate
There have no changes made here for a long long time that I can recall. It is
not the suggestion that is bad, it is bricklink that seems to be inimical to
change.
John P
I'm sure there is someone out there who thinks it's ok to use sneak-fees for
profit.
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
I like the idea, one escape route still left though even if this went through.
Until all fees have to be separated from "shipping" and shipping is changed
to " actual postage cost paid" shysters can just keep adding them onto shipping
and saying there is no "fee" it's part of the cost of shipping. "Handling is
part of shipping and my lot fees are part of handling...."
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
I like the idea, one escape route still left though even if this went through.
Until all fees have to be separated from "shipping" and shipping is changed
to " actual postage cost paid" shysters can just keep adding them onto shipping
and saying there is no "fee" it's part of the cost of shipping. "Handling is
part of shipping and my lot fees are part of handling...."
Add that change and I am on board.
Joe
The devil is in the details. The poliy would need to be worded very well. As
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure exactly how to write the "code"
But in essence, if it's not stated clearly in a store's TOS, they can't add it,
not to shipping, not anywhere.
So, An additional charge of xx$, or a charge of up to xx$, or a charge of xx%
are all ok, easily figurable.
Not ok would be a "blind" charge not disclosed, nor would there will be an additional
(undisclosed) amount added to your order for xx reason.
All would be clear in the TOS at time of purchase, so easy to check by Admin,
easy to enforce.
Of course, there are sellers who "guestimate" shipping and accidentally overcharge,
they would then be obligated to refund the overage.
I have been contacted privately and informed of the possible abuses of this system,
but I think if implemented properly, the level of fraudulent behavior would be
minimal compared to the current level of sneak-fee malfeasance.
That considered, I should not hold back til everything is perfect to get on board.
I'll miss the ship.
The poliy would need to be worded very well. As
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not sure exactly how to write the "code"
But in essence, if it's not stated clearly in a store's TOS, they can't add it,
not to shipping, not anywhere.
So, An additional charge of xx$, or a charge of up to xx$, or a charge of xx%
are all ok, easily figurable.
Not ok would be a "blind" charge not disclosed, nor would there will be an additional
(undisclosed) amount added to your order for xx reason.
All would be clear in the TOS at time of purchase, so easy to check by Admin,
easy to enforce.
I'm thinking that is quite practical to give people the freedom to structure
things the way they want to while making sure everything is disclosed. Have
a min shipping or set amount if you want but ramp up the consequences for sneaking
around.
Of course, there are sellers who "guestimate" shipping and accidentally overcharge,
they would then be obligated to refund the overage.
There is always going to be a certain amount of trust going on that is needed
and healthy in the vast majority of transactions. Your example hitting the nail.
While the trust is good a lack of consequences for sneaking in fees/overcharge,
especially when you have to commit to an order without an invoice, will only
help the site "brand".
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
A friend of mine shared some ideas about this with me. Seems logical and reasonable
to me and the main points of the discussion were not liking undisclosed fees
and this suggestion is not the answer to this problem. In fact, implementation
of this suggestion would lead to abuse and many bogus claims, increased work
for Admin, tying up inventory leaving it in limbo, and further similar suggestions
to address a variety of other seller misconduct.
What would preferable is to see instead Admin forcing sellers to accept buyer
OCR's
in certain limited situations - such as undisclosed fees - coupled with the buyer's
right to remove non-positive feedback he may receive from the seller for such
order cancelations. Perhaps also compensate Admin for taking time out to deal
with such problems, the seller must still pay selling fees to BrickLink for orders
canceled by Admin under this scenario.
Just a thought on this subject
John P
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
A friend of mine shared some ideas about this with me. Seems logical and reasonable
to me and the main points of the discussion were not liking undisclosed fees
and this suggestion is not the answer to this problem. In fact, implementation
of this suggestion would lead to abuse and many bogus claims, increased work
for Admin, tying up inventory leaving it in limbo, and further similar suggestions
to address a variety of other seller misconduct.
What would preferable is to see instead Admin forcing sellers to accept buyer
OCR's
in certain limited situations - such as undisclosed fees - coupled with the buyer's
right to remove non-positive feedback he may receive from the seller for such
order cancelations. Perhaps also compensate Admin for taking time out to deal
with such problems, the seller must still pay selling fees to BrickLink for orders
canceled by Admin under this scenario.
Just a thought on this subject
John P
Very interesting, but I don't forsee a lot of support from sellers.
I would interested in selling a box added to the feeback that would include:
OCR made: for buyers
OCR allowed: for sellers
and of course both for both and it should stay even if a seller reverts to just
a buyer.
Also add a NRB(no-responsive buyer), sometimes you need a buyer to respond to
a question, yes a NPB is used for theat, but a NRB could again be added to the
FB page.
Also NRS needs to be added to sellers FB page, just to keep them on their toes,
to prevent abuse a NRS or NRB should not be able to be filed until 7 days after
the order has been placed, remember life happens and 7 days should give people
a chance to resolve personal issues that are preventing them from fullfilling
their BL duties.
The NRB and NRS just lets people know that they are not the best at communicating.
So that if you are a chatty Cathy they might not be the best for you.
While communications are not required they help make things go better. Seller's
remember that new buyers are putting their trust in you and even if you do everything
else perfectly, some people are put off from a lack of communication, and may
not come back to BL at all. And chances are if you don't respond to them, they
won't be shopping at your store again.
Very interesting, but I don't forsee a lot of support from sellers.
On the contrary, the "honest" sellers who don't add any sneaky fees would be
in support of this, as it levels the playing field! The only ones who would appose
this would be those who wish to continue their dishonest behaviors.
Great idea, Rob. As a buyer I hate fees, which is why there are none in my store!!
Very interesting, but I don't forsee a lot of support from sellers.
On the contrary, the "honest" sellers who don't add any sneaky fees would be
in support of this, as it levels the playing field! The only ones who would appose
this would be those who wish to continue their dishonest behaviors.
Great idea, Rob. As a buyer I hate fees, which is why there are none in my store!!
-Ruth
Please prove me wrong, I am used to being proved wrong by a woman, I have been
married for almost 19 years. Oh man I am old.
In addition to seller penalties NRS and NSS I would like to add "Undisclosed
fees added to invoice."
Three strikes and out.
It's most probably illegal in all cases to add undisclosed fees to a "binding
contract" worldwide, so why is it tolerated here?
-R
A friend of mine shared some ideas about this with me. Seems logical and reasonable
to me and the main points of the discussion were not liking undisclosed fees
and this suggestion is not the answer to this problem. In fact, implementation
of this suggestion would lead to abuse and many bogus claims, increased work
for Admin, tying up inventory leaving it in limbo, and further similar suggestions
to address a variety of other seller misconduct.
What would preferable is to see instead Admin forcing sellers to accept buyer
OCR's
in certain limited situations - such as undisclosed fees - coupled with the buyer's
right to remove non-positive feedback he may receive from the seller for such
order cancelations. Perhaps also compensate Admin for taking time out to deal
with such problems, the seller must still pay selling fees to BrickLink for orders
canceled by Admin under this scenario.
Just a thought on this subject
John P
USA, Washington
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
