The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
The buyer can cancel the order if the shipping costs are not clearly stated on
the sellers terms.
From the ToS
Order Cancellation:
The following are some but not all reasons for which you can request an order
to be cancelled. The actual cancellation of an order is to be resolved or
agreed by the Buyer and the Seller. If there is a dispute between a Buyer or
Seller regarding whether an order should be cancelled, we reserve the right (but
do not have an obligation) to resolve the dispute.
As a Buyer, you can request an order be cancelled for the following reasons:
Mutual agreement to cancel between Buyer and Seller
Seller did not respond to emails
Seller did not have items after order was submitted
Seller listed item with error
Seller provided a shipping fee that was too high (not clearly stated in the Seller’s
terms and conditions of sale)
Seller is using an exchange rate inconsistent with the exchange rates specified
in these Terms
Seller did not ship order after payment was made
Seller is underage (under the age of majority)
Seller is no longer a registered Seller on the Site
System problem during order submission (excluding not receiving order notification
e-mail)
Applicable law gives you the right to cancel the order
The following are not valid reasons for a Buyer to cancel an order:
Buyer no longer wants the items - This is the most common example which BrickLink
does not tolerate, except where applicable law gives the Buyer the right to cancel
an order. 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, subject
to the Buyer’s rights under applicable law.
Buyer found items cheaper somewhere else - Buyer should be confident that he
or she is ready to pay the asking prices before submitting an order. After an
order is submitted, the Buyer enters into a legally binding contract with the
Seller to purchase all items in that order.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
Which is why sellers should only support Instant Checkout (where all fees are
disclosed) or Quote Request (where there is no obligation to complete, on either
party).
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
Which is why sellers should only support Instant Checkout (where all fees are
disclosed) or Quote Request (where there is no obligation to complete, on either
party).
NR
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
Not really. If it fits by lettermail, it's the same cost to ship anywhere
in Canada. And if it doesn't fit by lettermail, you can use a Flat Rate box,
and it's still the same cost to ship anywhere in Canada.
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
Not really. If it fits by lettermail, it's the same cost to ship anywhere
in Canada. And if it doesn't fit by lettermail, you can use a Flat Rate box,
and it's still the same cost to ship anywhere in Canada.
Exactly, so why does a seller in Canada need to increase postage costs? Its a
fixed rate based on what you describe and those box rates also have price weight
costs.
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
Not really. If it fits by lettermail, it's the same cost to ship anywhere
in Canada. And if it doesn't fit by lettermail, you can use a Flat Rate box,
and it's still the same cost to ship anywhere in Canada.
Exactly, so why does a seller in Canada need to increase postage costs? Its a
fixed rate based on what you describe and those box rates also have price weight
costs.
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
Not really. If it fits by lettermail, it's the same cost to ship anywhere
in Canada. And if it doesn't fit by lettermail, you can use a Flat Rate box,
and it's still the same cost to ship anywhere in Canada.
im not sure what u are using but Canadapost gives me different rates per city
for the same package....
I dont do instant checkout only invoice because shipping costs vary wildly in
Canada.
Not really. If it fits by lettermail, it's the same cost to ship anywhere
in Canada. And if it doesn't fit by lettermail, you can use a Flat Rate box,
and it's still the same cost to ship anywhere in Canada.
im not sure what u are using but Canadapost gives me different rates per city
for the same package....
You can buy flat rate boxes from Canada post but they are more expensive then
a normal label to like 9 out of 10 destinations
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
Which is why sellers should only support Instant Checkout (where all fees are
disclosed) or Quote Request (where there is no obligation to complete, on either
party).
NR
+1
invoices can be helpful as they reserve items however the tradeoff isn't
worth it considering its "dubious nature" with modern consumer protection
laws and the "risk/complications" to the buyer if the seller adds more
then described in the tos
“Modern”? As in “enacted (at least) 30 years ago”?
Modern English, c. 400 years old
But BrickLink is 24 years old. Everything is relative¹.
———
¹ Not to be confused with “Everyone is a relative,” which would be more appropriate
if we were talking about Genghis Khan
No such thing as "modern in law". Novel perhaps could be the correct
word.
But this is not novel, the law is the law, and its years old not new. Granted
as you point out Bricklink may be 24 years old and these various consumer laws
are only 5ish years old.
Just because Bricklink link suggests in a outdated manner that you can NPB etc,
does not give the right to any individual buyer/seller to conduct himself in
that fashion. They are still obliged to comply with those laws and regulations.
“Modern”? As in “enacted (at least) 30 years ago”?
[…]
But this is not novel, the law is the law, and its years old not new. Granted
as you point out Bricklink may be 24 years old and these various consumer laws
are only 5ish years old.
My point was the opposite: EU countries have had such laws for decades (emphasized
in the quote above)
(For instance in 1987 in France, and there's EC/EU directives from the 1990s.)
Just because Bricklink link suggests in a outdated manner that you can NPB etc,
does not give the right to any individual buyer/seller to conduct himself in
that fashion. They are still obliged to comply with those laws and regulations.
Exactly.
But as Yorbrick said, it's been discussed several times for several years
here, without much effect on BL. The difference is that now the laws are popping
up in America.
“Modern”? As in “enacted (at least) 30 years ago”?
[…]
But this is not novel, the law is the law, and its years old not new. Granted
as you point out Bricklink may be 24 years old and these various consumer laws
are only 5ish years old.
My point was the opposite: EU countries have had such laws for decades (emphasized
in the quote above)
(For instance in 1987 in France, and there's EC/EU directives from the 1990s.)
Just because Bricklink link suggests in a outdated manner that you can NPB etc,
does not give the right to any individual buyer/seller to conduct himself in
that fashion. They are still obliged to comply with those laws and regulations.
Exactly.
But as Yorbrick said, it's been discussed several times for several years
here, without much effect on BL. The difference is that now the laws are popping
up in America.
That is a trite fact in law.
Agreed and now its time to change/moderate/amend so EVERYONE can be in compliance.
The very simple solution is to change the NPB effect from "Order to "Invoice"
because only the Invoices discloses all the elements of the transaction.
By doing this the NPB effect on Invoicing rather than Ordering because globally
universal does it not?
“Modern”? As in “enacted (at least) 30 years ago”?
[…]
But this is not novel, the law is the law, and its years old not new. Granted
as you point out Bricklink may be 24 years old and these various consumer laws
are only 5ish years old.
My point was the opposite: EU countries have had such laws for decades (emphasized
in the quote above)
(For instance in 1987 in France, and there's EC/EU directives from the 1990s.)
Just because Bricklink link suggests in a outdated manner that you can NPB etc,
does not give the right to any individual buyer/seller to conduct himself in
that fashion. They are still obliged to comply with those laws and regulations.
Exactly.
But as Yorbrick said, it's been discussed several times for several years
here, without much effect on BL. The difference is that now the laws are popping
up in America.
That is a trite fact in law.
Agreed and now its time to change/moderate/amend so EVERYONE can be in compliance.
The very simple solution is to change the NPB effect from "Order to "Invoice"
because only the Invoices discloses all the elements of the transaction.
By doing this the NPB effect on Invoicing rather than Ordering because globally
universal does it not?
That's a bit moot with instant checkout on the majority of stores though
isn't it? As invoicing and ordering are essentially the same action.
IMO NBP doesn't really have anything to do with buyers wanting to cancel.
It's more for users who order, then don't pay and never respond to any
messages. Only real use is to try and prevent them being a PITA and wasting
loads of time for other sellers. If people want to cancel, a simple request
is all that should be needed.
[…]
That's a bit moot with instant checkout on the majority of stores though
isn't it? As invoicing and ordering are essentially the same action.
There's still quite a few sellers who can't do IC (Canada…).
Anyway, it's not because 99% of the trains are on time that nothing needs
to be done for the other 1%
IMO NBP doesn't really have anything to do with buyers wanting to cancel.
It's more for users who order, then don't pay and never respond to any
messages. Only real use is to try and prevent them being a PITA and wasting
loads of time for other sellers. If people want to cancel, a simple request
is all that should be needed.
“Should” is the right modal: it should, it often does, but sometimes it doesn't.
If you remember the old threads about that, some were somewhat heated.
The “it's binding! NPB! Off with their heads!” position is thankfully less
vocal nowadays
“Modern”? As in “enacted (at least) 30 years ago”?
[…]
But this is not novel, the law is the law, and its years old not new. Granted
as you point out Bricklink may be 24 years old and these various consumer laws
are only 5ish years old.
My point was the opposite: EU countries have had such laws for decades (emphasized
in the quote above)
(For instance in 1987 in France, and there's EC/EU directives from the 1990s.)
Just because Bricklink link suggests in a outdated manner that you can NPB etc,
does not give the right to any individual buyer/seller to conduct himself in
that fashion. They are still obliged to comply with those laws and regulations.
Exactly.
But as Yorbrick said, it's been discussed several times for several years
here, without much effect on BL. The difference is that now the laws are popping
up in America.
That is a trite fact in law.
Agreed and now its time to change/moderate/amend so EVERYONE can be in compliance.
The very simple solution is to change the NPB effect from "Order to "Invoice"
because only the Invoices discloses all the elements of the transaction.
By doing this the NPB effect on Invoicing rather than Ordering because globally
universal does it not?
That's a bit moot with instant checkout on the majority of stores though
isn't it? As invoicing and ordering are essentially the same action.
IMO NBP doesn't really have anything to do with buyers wanting to cancel.
It's more for users who order, then don't pay and never respond to any
messages. Only real use is to try and prevent them being a PITA and wasting
loads of time for other sellers. If people want to cancel, a simple request
is all that should be needed.
NPB is a historical artifact, leftover from the days before IC was even thought
about, and Quote Requests had not been implemented.
NPB existed because, in the beginning, all payments were manually managed by
sellers, in the hopes that the buyer would actually complete payment. Before
BL ever existed, back when parts sales were done on a very ad-hoc basis, people
did checks or money orders within their own countries, and for sales across borders
(where there were people willing to be intermediaries) there was something called
factoring. That required one person per country, who would keep a running
ledger of which seller was due how much, and which counter-party (in another
country) owed them how much (or vice-versa). It was a very manual process, but
it got the job done before there was PayPal.
NPB, for all intents and purposes, has outlived it's usefulness.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
You are not obliged to. Never BL said you are obliged to pay once an order is
submitted.
But if you do not request a quote, or for whatever reason, you submit an order
and then don't pay, then BL gives you an NPB and once you get three NPBs,
BL refuses to provide you service. BL is not obliged to provide you service
and access to its website.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
You are not obliged to. Never BL said you are obliged to pay once an order is
submitted.
But if you do not request a quote, or for whatever reason, you submit an order
and then don't pay, then BL gives you an NPB and once you get three NPBs,
BL refuses to provide you service. BL is not obliged to provide you service
and access to its website.
under section 5 of the ToS
"As a Buyer, if you place an order in a store on the Site, then you are
obligated to complete the purchase, subject to any rights you may have to cancel
an order under applicable law or under these Terms."
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
You are not obliged to. Never BL said you are obliged to pay once an order is
submitted.
But if you do not request a quote, or for whatever reason, you submit an order
and then don't pay, then BL gives you an NPB and once you get three NPBs,
BL refuses to provide you service. BL is not obliged to provide you service
and access to its website.
under section 5 of the ToS
"As a Buyer, if you place an order in a store on the Site, then you are
obligated to complete the purchase, subject to any rights you may have to cancel
an order under applicable law or under these Terms."
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
More like you get caught smoking weed and get let off with a warning. Next month
you get caught again and get let off. Next month you get caught again and get
banged up.
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
More like you get caught smoking weed and get let off with a warning. Next month
you get caught again and get let off. Next month you get caught again and get
banged up.
Ha ha, no not at all. That's ridiculous.
We're talking about a buyer canceling an order in response to a seller setting
outrageous S&H fees. Which is even one of the listed reasons for cancelation:
Seller provided a shipping fee that was too high (not clearly stated in the Seller’s
terms and conditions of sale)
And whether or not canceling in that case is "allowed."
That's not at all like getting caught breaking the rules.
We're talking about a buyer canceling an order in response to a seller setting
outrageous S&H fees. Which is even one of the listed reasons for cancelation:
If the shipping fees are outrageous and the customer asks to cancel, then it
should not be an NPB under the current rules.
We're talking about a buyer canceling an order in response to a seller setting
outrageous S&H fees. Which is even one of the listed reasons for cancelation:
If the shipping fees are outrageous and the customer asks to cancel, then it
should not be an NPB under the current rules.
Again another reasonable person standard!
As you clearly point out the conflict between "buyer cancellation" and
"Npb in the Order process in which there is an unconscionable party who gets
NPB'ed for not allowing otherwise behaviour worthy of cancellation.
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
More like you get caught smoking weed and get let off with a warning. Next month
you get caught again and get let off. Next month you get caught again and get
banged up.
Goes to the intention of why you were smoking the weed, was it medical use opposed
to deliberate unlawful conduct. But I get your point.
If the intention is to make that purchase and the seller moves that goal post
then the production of that Order by that buyer is unintentional not intentional
and an NPB should never be condoned.
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
Most of the thread contains the elements of fees and hidden fees between the
Order and the invoice. If someone makes a deal to purchase and then renigs on
that. Yes they should have an NPB.
If a person says in their Terms and Conditions I will charge (a)shipping (b)
BL Fees (c) paypal fees etc and then produces an invoice based on that order
where shipping is doubled for example, then you have a contaminated contract
(otherwise known as an "unconscionable contract".
That is where Bricklink fails the buyer/seller in regards its "suggested"
use of an NPB and the like.
You are "allowed" to charge various fees. The difference between laws
and bricklink is Bricklink does not distinguish how those fees are "allowed".
But the basic fact still remains an Order is not a legal document in court, it
goes to proof of intention (motive), The Invoice is the legal document (the Act).
The motive of buyer can be I want to buy that and I will pay your price for the
set, plus reasonable shipping etc. In Regulatory law the law is premised on "what
a reasonable person would do". Its reasonable to agree to purchase and pay
fees. Its unreasonable to add a quick 20 bucks to postage because you can and
then NPB someone
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
Most of the thread contains the elements of fees and hidden fees between the
Order and the invoice. If someone makes a deal to purchase and then renigs on
that. Yes they should have an NPB.
If a person says in their Terms and Conditions I will charge (a)shipping (b)
BL Fees (c) paypal fees etc and then produces an invoice based on that order
where shipping is doubled for example, then you have a contaminated contract
(otherwise known as an "unconscionable contract".
I disagree (and mostly with your attorney-esq wording). If all fess are fully
disclosed in the shopping cart, and the buyer/customer has full visibility to
those fees, and the grand total, where is the harm ? This is not a situation
where the buyer can hold a (metaphorical) gun to the head of the seller and tell
them to remove those fees. The issue here is fees which are spoken about in the
seller's terms, but do not appear in the shopping cart prior to the order
being created. I have been very against that for a long time.
That's is not against what I said. You can cancel. They allow you to cancel
but seller can complete an NPB against you. They don't come to your house
make you pay forcefully, they just complete an NPB. Once you have 3 NPB, they
revoke your buying priviledge. BL has the right to do that and you cannot
oblige BL to allow you using the marketplace. This is also legal.
If you come over to my house and I say you're allowed to grab a beer from
the fridge, go for it. Then you come over again and I say the same thing and
you grab another one. Then you come over a third time, I say the same thing,
you grab a beer, and I ban you from my property forever...
That's not really what "allowed" means to me.
Most of the thread contains the elements of fees and hidden fees between the
Order and the invoice. If someone makes a deal to purchase and then renigs on
that. Yes they should have an NPB.
If a person says in their Terms and Conditions I will charge (a)shipping (b)
BL Fees (c) paypal fees etc and then produces an invoice based on that order
where shipping is doubled for example, then you have a contaminated contract
(otherwise known as an "unconscionable contract".
I disagree (and mostly with your attorney-esq wording). If all fess are fully
disclosed in the shopping cart, and the buyer/customer has full visibility to
those fees, and the grand total, where is the harm ? This is not a situation
where the buyer can hold a (metaphorical) gun to the head of the seller and tell
them to remove those fees. The issue here is fees which are spoken about in the
seller's terms, but do not appear in the shopping cart prior to the order
being created. I have been very against that for a long time.
NR
Ok we are close and I think having a misunderstanding in interpretation. I agree
with you and it is correct to say "if fees are disclosed in terms and conditions".
100% agree with you.
Now lets say I purchase a 500.00 set from you and you have fees such as shipping
disclosed. I run the numbers through USPS/Canadian Post and come to an average
number of 20.00. You agree to ship via postage. We have a solid deal right I
am expecting an Invoice for $520.00 correct? Or very close to it.
I as a buyer do the Order (now I have placed myself in a position of an NPB)
by producing the Order under BL Terms and Conditions. That is not contentious.
You as the seller then say great an order and produce an invoice for 500.00 for
the set and either guess postage as 50.00 or even known its 20.00 and make it
50.00 for whatever reason. The Invoice comes in at 550.00 rather than the intended
520.00.
Now 30.00 does not sound like much, it isnt to me but I am a bit of a principled
asshole too. The gouging or usurious conduct is based on the 20.00 not the 500.00.
That is 1.5 times the actual cost. Disclosure v's Quantum, you must know
what you are being held to account for before placing yourself in a position
to be held account.
That is the unconscionable and unreasonable element. In that circumstance an
NPB should absolutely be prohibited.
There are many sellers who state this in their terms and conditions, that they
will refund excessive fees once postage is known. I can tell you from personally
dealings with then they are honest and do that.
In that circumstance of not knowing the Invoice amount when Ordering a buyer
should be allowed to cancel without the threat of an NPB. Because that is extortion
when such a threat to ones reputation is at stake.
There are many sellers who state this in their terms and conditions, that they
will refund excessive fees once postage is known. I can tell you from personally
dealings with then they are honest and do that.
Part of that is due to BL not having (until recently) a proper calculation for
USPS (let alone post services outside the USA). Getting shipping right, getting
it absolutely pin-point correct, requires something that BL (and most other similar
sites) do not support ... namely knowledge of exactly which packaging each seller
keeps on hand. 10 years back, I was keeping 50+ box sizes on hand. Some could
be used for Priority only, and some were good for any shipping mode. Some were
USPS Priority Mail boxes which I had a one time, never to be repeated, ability
to obtain supplies of. I still have some of them. So those boxes are atypical,
but legitimate. BL has no way to know what my shipping box selection looks like.
Once upon a time I tried to make a shipping line entry for each different box
size. It overloaded the BL checkout system, to the point that it could not make
correct selections for my store (not to mention that it might show 20 or 30 choices
to a buyer at checkout). So compromises had to be made. Right now, I'm shipping
on no more than 5 or 6 box sizes, but I still have an inventory of 25+ sizes.
In that circumstance of not knowing the Invoice amount when Ordering a buyer
should be allowed to cancel without the threat of an NPB. Because that is extortion
when such a threat to ones reputation is at stake.
My own view is that any order, that contains an unresolved TBD in the shopping
cart, is and should be a Request For Quote. That will endlessly annoy some sellers,
but it would, once and for all, put a wooden stake through the heart of the NPB.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
I completely agree with you, I only buy from this site when the shipping cost
is shown as I once placed an order for just a handful of small pieces and they
wanted over £6 in postage even though it was only a large letter that costs £1.55
I understand that there are fees but that just took the pee
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
I don't think it is a legal obligation (in fact, it can't be).
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
I don't think it is a legal obligation (in fact, it can't be).
Graham you and I have had some large Lego transactions between us. I fully understand
your point, also I recently had an NPB put against me by a shmuck in Vancouver
on a small deal for hidden costs.
It is not just the FTC, its in various regions and countries.
I can say this from both my law enforcement days and the fact I have a law degree.....
You are correct.
In regards Bricklink, they are also correct.
Non contentious facts (1) Lego Group owns Bricklink (2) Bricklink is a sole entity
used by its parent company for data mining and secondary market promotion of
the brand, (3) BrickLink has a set of terms and conditions which include (a)
we are expected to act lawfully (b) sellers and buyers are to comply with laws
in their States/Provinces?territories and countries.
Of course there are some unscrupulous and even usurious people out there that
take advantage and then threaten was NPB NSS etc.
Bricklink needs to wake up here they have fallen behind the legislative regulations,
I just had this conversation with Nubs last week. But granted in Canada the Consumer
Protection Acts were only proclaimed and promulgated between 2018-2020. Although
yes it is 2024.
Solution.....Bricklink changes its terms and conditions and its Order process
slightly. No NPB can be issued until such time as the Order clearly shows all
costs, an Invoice is produced and the buyer agrees with the "invoice"
not the "order". The Order is not the legal document.......You don't
have to pay duties and taxes on Orders, you pay them on Invoices if you get my
point.
Bricklink should enforces percentage regulations in its Terms & Conditions. I
don't know about Europe but I could look, But the Commonwealth has a consensus
that consumer laws are breached with gouging and 10% above fees is Regulatory.
Above 30% is criminally usurious.
Now Mr Bricklink, if you would like me to give some suggestions to "your"
Terms and Conditions I would be happy to make recommendations without prejudice
and you can pass them onto your counsel for consideration. Change is needed before
this oversite becomes a serious issue between a Buyer and Seller which is highly
probable.
At the very least, remove the ability to leave feedback on canceled orders AND/OR
require all stores to provide Quote Requests.
Regardless of the “law,” it makes no sense from an ethical standpoint to punish
buyers for cancelling an order if they were not aware of the actual cost of their
order. It also does not make business sense to alienate buyers with that opaque
process. I am speaking generally here, **not directly to any of these comments/posts.**
In Terms and Policies, ScubaSteve writes:
In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:
In Terms and Policies, Graham. writes:
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
I don't think it is a legal obligation (in fact, it can't be).
Graham you and I have had some large Lego transactions between us. I fully understand
your point, also I recently had an NPB put against me by a shmuck in Vancouver
on a small deal for hidden costs.
It is not just the FTC, its in various regions and countries.
I can say this from both my law enforcement days and the fact I have a law degree.....
You are correct.
In regards Bricklink, they are also correct.
Non contentious facts (1) Lego Group owns Bricklink (2) Bricklink is a sole entity
used by its parent company for data mining and secondary market promotion of
the brand, (3) BrickLink has a set of terms and conditions which include (a)
we are expected to act lawfully (b) sellers and buyers are to comply with laws
in their States/Provinces?territories and countries.
Of course there are some unscrupulous and even usurious people out there that
take advantage and then threaten was NPB NSS etc.
Bricklink needs to wake up here they have fallen behind the legislative regulations,
I just had this conversation with Nubs last week. But granted in Canada the Consumer
Protection Acts were only proclaimed and promulgated between 2018-2020. Although
yes it is 2024.
Solution.....Bricklink changes its terms and conditions and its Order process
slightly. No NPB can be issued until such time as the Order clearly shows all
costs, an Invoice is produced and the buyer agrees with the "invoice"
not the "order". The Order is not the legal document.......You don't
have to pay duties and taxes on Orders, you pay them on Invoices if you get my
point.
Bricklink should enforces percentage regulations in its Terms & Conditions. I
don't know about Europe but I could look, But the Commonwealth has a consensus
that consumer laws are breached with gouging and 10% above fees is Regulatory.
Above 30% is criminally usurious.
Now Mr Bricklink, if you would like me to give some suggestions to "your"
Terms and Conditions I would be happy to make recommendations without prejudice
and you can pass them onto your counsel for consideration. Change is needed before
this oversite becomes a serious issue between a Buyer and Seller which is highly
probable.
This, and the sameor similar solutions, have been discussed for years but nothing
is ever done. Instant checkout made significant improvements as buyers that are
concerned can choose not to place an order if the postage and fees are not displayed
for an order and shop elsewhere, or ignore stores completely if they don't
offer it. But still not a complete solution.
This, and the sameor similar solutions, have been discussed for years but nothing
is ever done. Instant checkout made significant improvements as buyers that are
concerned can choose not to place an order if the postage and fees are not displayed
for an order and shop elsewhere, or ignore stores completely if they don't
offer it. But still not a complete solution.
Indeed, if we had a way to charge sales tax based on province here in Canada
that could (almost) fully remove the problem in Canada and increase sales
This is why shipping costs are in my shipping terms so if a quote is needed for
large orders or sets - customers will have a ballpark figure before they even
ask for a quote or invoice.
But most of my buyers who complain about cost did not read the shipping terms
and will say shipping is too high even if it is less than the rates listed by
the USPS. Then I cancel the order and block the customer.
This is why shipping costs are in my shipping terms so if a quote is needed for
large orders or sets - customers will have a ballpark figure before they even
ask for a quote or invoice.
Many stores have shipping costs in their terms but then don't show estimated
shipping at checkout.
But most of my buyers who complain about cost did not read the shipping terms
and will say shipping is too high even if it is less than the rates listed by
the USPS. Then I cancel the order and block the customer.
Less than the retail rate or less than the commercial rate?
For us, it is usually international shipping quotes where they ask for an invoice
and then do not even ask us to cancel they just ghost us as the buyer so we just
cancel the order. As to the US I use weight bands and zone 8 off of the USPS
pricelist.
In Terms and Policies, peregrinator writes:
In Terms and Policies, zero42593 writes:
This is why shipping costs are in my shipping terms so if a quote is needed for
large orders or sets - customers will have a ballpark figure before they even
ask for a quote or invoice.
Many stores have shipping costs in their terms but then don't show estimated
shipping at checkout.
But most of my buyers who complain about cost did not read the shipping terms
and will say shipping is too high even if it is less than the rates listed by
the USPS. Then I cancel the order and block the customer.
Less than the retail rate or less than the commercial rate?
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
It's a big turnoff for me to commit to paying an unknown amount to someone
I've never met. Generally I try to go somewhere else rather than shop at
such stores.
I'm also sympathetic to the difficulty of calculating shipping in advance,
and I never want someone to lose money on my order. Often I am ordering baseplates
or instructions, which can't just be tossed in a bubble mailer.
There needs to be another step of calculating the actual shipping and presenting
it for the buyer's agreement. We could call it, I don't know, a "Quote"
or something like that.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
It's a big turnoff for me to commit to paying an unknown amount to someone
I've never met. Generally I try to go somewhere else rather than shop at
such stores.
I'm also sympathetic to the difficulty of calculating shipping in advance,
and I never want someone to lose money on my order. Often I am ordering baseplates
or instructions, which can't just be tossed in a bubble mailer.
There needs to be another step of calculating the actual shipping and presenting
it for the buyer's agreement. We could call it, I don't know, a "Quote"
or something like that.
You my friend won the "reasonable person of the week award". You nailed
it from a legal perspective!
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
I agree. Bricklink needs to start complying with the law.
In particular, California amended their Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit
junk fees.
As of July 1, 2024, it is unlawful to advertise, display, or offer a price for
a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than
taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
Not every seller, as not every seller advertises to Californian customers.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
Not every seller, as not every seller advertises to Californian customers.
It also wouldn't apply to sellers who are already compliant.
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
I agree. Bricklink needs to start complying with the law.
In particular, California amended their Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit
junk fees.
As of July 1, 2024, it is unlawful to advertise, display, or offer a price for
a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than
taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
I'm not seeing the issue, for those sellers that are 100% IC. Care to elaborate
?
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
I agree. Bricklink needs to start complying with the law.
In particular, California amended their Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit
junk fees.
As of July 1, 2024, it is unlawful to advertise, display, or offer a price for
a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than
taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
I'm not seeing the issue, for those sellers that are 100% IC. Care to elaborate
?
NR
Pretty sure if selling with that law you can only charge item price + shipping
+ tax and nothing else. Bricklink has been taking action against stores charging
PayPal fees lately so that might be why (at least to the best of my knowledge
there are at least several such cases)
https://oag.ca.gov/hiddenfees
“makes it illegal for most businesses to advertise or list a price for a good
or service that does not include all required fees or charges other than certain
government taxes and shipping costs. … Put simply, the price a Californian sees
should be the price they pay.”
So even if you have instant checkout with the fees shown they are still not part
of the items price and (to the best of my understanding with this law which I
might be wrong) is illegal
It still would not affect many, many sellers (like me) who use IC and don’t have
any extra fees.
In Terms and Policies, Nubs_Select writes:
In Terms and Policies, cosmicray writes:
In Terms and Policies, BrickDeals writes:
In Terms and Policies, Graham. writes:
The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) enforces laws that require businesses to provide
clear and accurate information about costs. This includes the requirement that
businesses must disclose the full cost of a product, including any additional
fees, before a consumer is obligated to pay. If a seller fails to disclose the
total price, this could be considered deceptive or unfair under the FTC Act.
With reference to the attached screen shot. I am fairly certain the wording falls
foul "obligated" cannot apply until all costs including shipping are
known.
This is the only place on the internet where one is obligated to purchase without
full disclosure, please consider revising the wording, or preferably automatically
provide a "request quote" option.
This is also the main reason I don't make many purchases on site, and go
elsewhere.
I agree. Bricklink needs to start complying with the law.
In particular, California amended their Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit
junk fees.
As of July 1, 2024, it is unlawful to advertise, display, or offer a price for
a good or service that does not include all mandatory fees or charges other than
taxes or fees imposed by a government on the transaction.
This would apply to any seller transacting with a consumer in California.
This is actually a serious potential legal issue for every seller on this site,
as a consumer can sue for the greater of $1000 or the cost of damages, in addition
to punitive damages, attorney fees etc.
I'm not seeing the issue, for those sellers that are 100% IC. Care to elaborate
?
NR
Pretty sure if selling with that law you can only charge item price + shipping
+ tax and nothing else. Bricklink has been taking action against stores charging
PayPal fees lately so that might be why (at least to the best of my knowledge
there are at least several such cases)
https://oag.ca.gov/hiddenfees
“makes it illegal for most businesses to advertise or list a price for a good
or service that does not include all required fees or charges other than certain
government taxes and shipping costs. … Put simply, the price a Californian sees
should be the price they pay.”
So even if you have instant checkout with the fees shown they are still not part
of the items price and (to the best of my understanding with this law which I
might be wrong) is illegal
USA, Tennessee
Canada, Alberta
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Germany, Nordrhein-Westfalen
United Kingdom, England
