Paypal refunded product arrived. What to do

tagoona

Hi all.
Looking for some advice
June 8
Bought a phone on adverts, paid via paypal.
Adverts communication went dead, no tracking number.
I presumed I'd been scammed.
Complained to adverts, ad was pulled.
Contacted via paypal, no answers either.
Disputed with paypal, resolved and received my money back. July 7

About a week later, the phone arrives unexpected (with charge of 30E) July 14
By this time i've already ordered a one plus three.

Have no contact details for the seller.
I hung on to phone, waiting for contact, nothing.
Sold the phone onto a friend for 150

Seller suddenly contacted me November 8 wanting his money.

What are my obligations?
BTW I've been nice and offered him the 120 (150 I got - 30 customs)

Bob Z

why did he send you the phone a month late? and why did he only get in touch months later?

SteM

tagoona wrote: »

Hi all.
Looking for some advice
June 8
Bought a phone on adverts, paid via paypal.
Adverts communication went dead, no tracking number.
I presumed I'd been scammed.
Complained to adverts, ad was pulled.
Contacted via paypal, no answers either.
Disputed with paypal, resolved and received my money back. July 7

About a week later, the phone arrives unexpected (with charge of 30E) July 14
By this time i've already ordered a one plus three.

Have no contact details for the seller.
I hung on to phone, waiting for contact, nothing.
Sold the phone onto a friend for 150

Seller suddenly contacted me November 8 wanting his money.

What are my obligations?
BTW I've been nice and offered him the 120 (150 I got - 30 customs)

How much did you pay for the phone originally?

tagoona

No idea why the phone arrived late. He just said there was a delay.
Getting in contact now apparently because he went to use paypal and he can't access his money (something to do with my dispute I think. I don't use paypal to receive money, so don't understand that side of it.)

280 for phone originally.

Glass fused light

tagoona wrote: »

No idea why the phone arrived late. He just said there was a delay.
Getting in contact now apparently because he went to use paypal and he can't access his money (something to do with my dispute I think. I don't use paypal to receive money, so don't understand that side of it.)

280 for phone originally.

You did not own the phone so it was not yours to sell.

What seller information was available to you with the phone?
If you paid customs there should have been something.
Plus you paid the 30e (14th)knowing you got your money back from PayPal (7th) and that you had no right to keep the phone.
Did you re-contact adverts to get them follow up with the seller to return the phone?
Did you follow up with PayPal?

Best thing you could do is repay your friend their money, get the phone back and send it back.
Or pay the guy the agreed price of the phone, deducting the 30e cost from this depends on your original contract

tagoona

Yeah, I'm thinking give the phone back once I get my 30 euro and call it quits.
Didn't contact adverts or paypal, because they had already tried contact and failed.

Bob Z

yes i think you should send him back the phone tell him there was no communication and it arrived very late

get him to pay postage for sending it (but im not sure who should or who is obliged to pay for this)

you and him might end up compromising

Spocker

So just to offer another perspective here, as an Adverts Moderator

- You bought the phone from a "private citizen" (he didn't advertise himself as a shop)
- he used drop-shipping to send it to you, and you got hit for the customs charge, which you paid (he didn't mention customs in his ad, did he?)
- it didn't arrive in a timely fashion, so you followed the process to get your money back
- the phone arrived, no contact from seller, so you sold it on
- seller comes knocking, looking for his money

You're not obliged to give him anything, he had ample opportunity to get in touch, or to dispute the Paypal process. You're morally correct to offer him the 120 back, but you don't have to, IMHO

It's important to note here this was conducted as a "private citizen" transaction - the Sale of Goods act (and any advice given on that basis) does not apply here

Glass fused light

Spocker wrote: »

- the phone arrived, no contact from seller, so you sold it on


You're not obliged to give him anything, he had ample opportunity to get in touch, or to dispute the Paypal process. You're morally correct to offer him the 120 back, but you don't have to, IMHO

It's important to note here this was conducted as a "private citizen" transaction - the Sale of Goods act (and any advice given on that basis) does not apply here

The OP ended the contract due to failure to perform on the sellers behalf.
The OP was entitled to do this under the contract with the private citizen.

But since when are people allowed to sell goods they don't own?

Spocker

Glass fused light wrote: »

The OP ended the contract due to failure to perform on the sellers behalf.
The OP was entitled to do this under the contract with the private citizen.

But since when are people allowed to sell goods they don't own?

What contract? It's a private sale between two individuals. As much as "Caveat emptor" applies in any sale, "Caveat venditor" applies too. The OP did enough to rectify the situation in good time, the seller wasn't bothered until he couldn't access his Paypal account

Glass fused light

Spocker wrote: »

What contract? It's a private sale between two individuals. As much as "Caveat emptor" applies in any sale, "Caveat venditor" applies too. The OP did enough to rectify the situation in good time, the seller wasn't bothered until he couldn't access his Paypal account

But since when are people allowed to sell goods they don't own?

The original transaction was a contract with offer, acceptance, consideration etc.
The fact of it being a contract and private sale between two individuals did not make it less of a contract.

I agree that when the seller did not deliver within an agreed timeframe and if the op can reject the contract by seeking to get the money back, the contract was over. The op acted to end the contract and finalised the ending of the contract when the money was returned.

If the op ended the contract, the ownership of the phone did not transfer.

Just because the op received the phone in the mail/ by courier did not mean that the op can now claim ownership, if the contract is still active the 280e is due to the seller.

The op took the delivery of the phone after the money was repaid, there was a choice
1) not to pay the 30e and reject the delivery, then what happens to the phone is nothing to do with the op.
2) accept the late delivery as a change in the contract and pay what was due and get ownership of the phone.

If the op did not want to keep the phone the seller may have to negotiate to pay the cost of storage and postage to get it back. But imo the op did not have a right to sell it on without ownership.

Suckit

@Spocker, you could not be further from the reality if you tried.
The laws are there to protect both the consumer and the seller.
For whatever reasons, the seller was unable or did not contact the buyer immediately, and for what it is worth, some of that time may have been taken up with trying to make contact and sort out the issues with the postal service and the whomever else, but it is irrelevant.
The seller was not a scam artist, nor an individual trying to seek some quick money. That has been proven by the fact that the customer eventually received the item even after they had already accepted a refund.
The seller does not have to accept the used phone back, and can even demand extra money from the original buyer for taking up their time and for trying to return a (now) used phone. To be honest, I hope that they do. I dislike scam sellers more than anything, but the buyer used the system that is in place to protect people, to get their money back. Yet they thought it was perfectly acceptable to keep the item (worth a few hundred euro) after that, and sell it on at 120 profit.
If the seller used a drop shipping service, then they may not have known that you could get charged VAT (their fault).
But that also means that they could be in Ireland an could take you to the small claims court. (which would also explain the long time lapse between contacts between seller and buyer).
No matter what the case, it was not the OPs phone to sell, and will have to refund the full amount. They will not even be refunded the 30, as they should not have accepted it at the door (they should have checked the contents).

salamanca22

Suckit wrote: »

@Spocker, you could not be further from the reality if you tried.
The laws are there to protect both the consumer and the seller.
For whatever reasons, the seller was unable or did not contact the buyer immediately, and for what it is worth, some of that time may have been taken up with trying to make contact and sort out the issues with the postal service and the whomever else, but it is irrelevant.
The seller was not a scam artist, nor an individual trying to seek some quick money. That has been proven by the fact that the customer eventually received the item even after they had already accepted a refund.
The seller does not have to accept the used phone back, and can even demand extra money from the original buyer for taking up their time and for trying to return a (now) used phone. To be honest, I hope that they do. I dislike scam sellers more than anything, but the buyer used the system that is in place to protect people, to get their money back. Yet they thought it was perfectly acceptable to keep the item (worth a few hundred euro) after that, and sell it on at 120 profit.
If the seller used a drop shipping service, then they may not have known that you could get charged VAT (their fault).
But that also means that they could be in Ireland an could take you to the small claims court. (which would also explain the long time lapse between contacts between seller and buyer).
No matter what the case, it was not the OPs phone to sell, and will have to refund the full amount. They will not even be refunded the 30, as they should not have accepted it at the door (they should have checked the contents).

Wat.

Assuming that it was a private sale then nothing you mentioned is fact. The sale of goods act does not come into it since there is no business to consumer transaction here.

More so, a business nor a regular person can take another person to smalls claims court. Small claims court is there for a very limited amount of case types, none of which are person to person private sale disputes.

Suckit

God. A lot of alcohol was consumed as i had kept going after watching the Conor Mcgregor fight, and i come across like a condescending, bull****ting twatting moron.
Apologies to spocker and anyone else. That was not my intention. It was borne out of tiredness, alcohol, frustration and boredom. I was only slightly miffed, if anything although you could not tell that from my tone. - That the seller ended up losing out, even thought they were trying to make cash honestly. There are legal ways that the seller can get their cash back, although it may not be small claims court. I heard of something similar happening before with a pair of collectable trainers. But it may not have been a person to person transaction as my bungling full charge post above failed to point out, and salamanca22 correctly drew attention to..
So i guess that is me off drink for a little while? :angel: I do not really like it anyway, and if that is how i sound.. EEEWWWW!!!

Yowza. ;)

Conservative

I know this is probably a bit too late but from the perspective of somebody who sells online through adverts shop, Ebay and Amazon I wouldn't entertain this guy at all. If you are going to place an ad online and drops hip from China you should have the common decency to at least check that there are no issues with the deliver and that the buyer is happy.

Instead this guy emptied his Paypal account and either ignored their requests to deal with your case or he hasn't bothered to check at all.

Paypal have refunded you directly (so they have been out of pocket since then) and this guy has now realised they have a hold on his account for the refunded amount.

Tough luck I say. That's what you get for not giving a damn after taking somebody's money. Paypal will pursue him and not you for the amount.

rubadub

Suckit wrote: »

That the seller ended up losing out, even thought they were trying to make cash honestly.

If the seller did not declare it was being drop shipped or shipped from outside the EU then I would not consider it honest, I would consider it a scam, not the worst of scams but it is certainly a confidence trick and so I would describe the seller as a conman.

Suckit

Not a scam, just probably someone that doesn't have the know-how or the means to do it another way. Also, we do not know for sure that they were drop shipping. it may have been lost and they were trying to sort it.
It should not mean that the buyer gets to keep it and the money.

Bob Z

Suckit wrote: »

Not a scam, just probably someone that doesn't have the know-how or the means to do it another way. Also, we do not know for sure that they were drop shipping. it may have been lost and they were trying to sort it.
It should not mean that the buyer gets to keep it and the money.

you might be right but he didnt help himself by lack of communication

rubadub

Suckit wrote: »

Not a scam, just probably someone that doesn't have the know-how or the means to do it another way.

As I said if they declare it is coming from outside the EU I would have no issue -I would not consider that a scam. Otherwise if undeclared it is certainly a scam, anybody selling phones on adverts and having them shipped from outside the EU would be 100% aware of the customs issues and know fine well it would not sell for as much and so the value is much less.

Suckit wrote: »

Also, we do not know for sure that they were drop shipping

I know, I covered that in my post.