Online auction sale goes wrong
|
Mr L sold goods on an online auction site and used an account provided by a non-cash payment facilitator to accept payment for the goods from the buyer.
|
Sometime after the sale, the buyer complained to the non-cash payment facilitator that the goods had not been received. Mr L could not produce postage and tracking information to prove that he had posted the goods to the buyer so the non-cash payment facilitator decided the complaint in favour of the buyer and issued a refund of $435 from Mr L’s account.
|
Dispute lodged with BFSO
|
Mr L complained that the non-cash payment facilitator, which was a member of BFSO, did not clearly disclose to Mr L that he would be required to produce postage and tracking information in the event of a dispute. Mr L also claimed that the non-cash payment facilitator had changed the user agreement and the Product Disclosure Statement since the dispute had occurred making it impossible for him to prove his claim.
|
BFSO’s investigation
|
BFSO reviewed the non-cash payment facilitator’s user agreement that applied at the time that the dispute arose. This stated that if the buyer claimed that an item was not received, the seller must be able to prove that the goods were posted by providing an on-line tracking number that showed proof of delivery or a faxed proof of postage from Australia Post Registered Post.
BFSO concluded that the non-cash payment facilitator had acted appropriately in accordance with the user agreement when it refunded the buyer because Mr L had not provided the required postage and tracking information.
BFSO also found that the user agreement had been disclosed on the website of the non-cash payment facilitator at the time the dispute had occurred and Mr L had accepted the terms and conditions. The user agreement had not been updated since the dispute arose so this could not have not affected Mr L’s claim.
|
|
