Both parties don't come off well here - the buyer could have given the seller the benefit of the doubt before posting a negative feedback over a trivial amount and the seller managed to turn an unjustified, in my opinion, negative feedback into a terrible publicity for itself.
Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
11–20 of 118 posts
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trouble is - you have to stand up to the bullies - even for those with whom you are less than sympathetic. Bullies must be stopped as if they succeed it will be you who they will come after next.
When is the last time a bully offered to buy you lunch because he accidentally took yours by accident?
And after you blog about your negative experience of having lunch taken away by accident, the bully sues you for slander.
In my book everybody acted within acceptable reason until they sued him for leaving a true review on ebay.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#13I'm guessing his comment is a bit more like "THESE GUYS SUCK!!!!1111111" than "I had to pay $1.44 more for postage". IMO that is fair enough, he is in the wrong. OTOH I'm sure eBay have a process in place for this - I think suing him is a bit much. They could also just leave him negative feedback...
The actual feedback is not only linked, but quoted in the article. Your guess was wrong.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#14Boy, if Ebay's policies are such that someone has incentive to sue someone else just for one negative feedback... I'm glad I don't use Ebay.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
When is the last time a bully offered to buy you lunch because he accidentally took yours by accident?
And after you blog about your negative experience of having lunch taken away by accident, the bully sues you for slander. In my book everybody acted within acceptable reason until they sued him for leaving a true review on ebay.
Let's put things in perspective. The post was short under 2 bucks and the seller was more than happy to cover it. So at what point does one think to themselves, hey let's go ahead and leave a negative feedback because there was a kink with the transaction? Hell, if every transaction had to work without a hitch, the majority of us wouldn't even be able to ship a product not to mention release an MVP...
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
And after you blog about your negative experience of having lunch taken away by accident, the bully sues you for slander. In my book everybody acted within acceptable reason until they sued him for leaving a true review on ebay.
Let's put things in perspective. The post was short under 2 bucks and the seller was more than happy to cover it. So at what point does one think to themselves, hey let's go ahead and leave a negative feedback because there was a kink with the transaction? Hell, if every transaction had to work without a hitch, the majority of us wouldn't even be able to ship a product not to mention release an MVP...
You have probably focused on the true problem. It looks like any negative element to the rather simplistic feedback model represents an issue for the seller. Why is that? - an issue ultimately fixed should be viewed as neutral - unless it is repeated too often.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trouble is - you have to stand up to the bullies - even for those with whom you are less than sympathetic. Bullies must be stopped as if they succeed it will be you who they will come after next.
When is the last time a bully offered to buy you lunch because he accidentally took yours by accident?
So I can take people’s lunches as long as I offer to buy them a new one some time later? Sounds about right.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#18I'm guessing his comment is a bit more like "THESE GUYS SUCK!!!!1111111" than "I had to pay $1.44 more for postage". IMO that is fair enough, he is in the wrong. OTOH I'm sure eBay have a process in place for this - I think suing him is a bit much. They could also just leave him negative feedback...
Buyers and Sellers leaving feedback for each other doesn't necessarily carry the symmetric property of equality. A Seller has more to lose or gain from feedback than a Buyer does.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
And after you blog about your negative experience of having lunch taken away by accident, the bully sues you for slander. In my book everybody acted within acceptable reason until they sued him for leaving a true review on ebay.
Let's put things in perspective. The post was short under 2 bucks and the seller was more than happy to cover it. So at what point does one think to themselves, hey let's go ahead and leave a negative feedback because there was a kink with the transaction? Hell, if every transaction had to work without a hitch, the majority of us wouldn't even be able to ship a product not to mention release an MVP...
> hey let's go ahead and leave a negative feedback because there was a kink with the transaction?
That's exactly what feedback on a per-transaction basis is for, isn't it? If a seller has a habit of sending things with underpaid postage, then a potential buyer will be able to see the pattern in the feedback history and choose not to buy. If it's a one-off, then a potential buyer will see that. The feedback history just represents fact.
If, on the other hand, buyers do not post negative feedback for such incidents, then a a seller habitually sending items with underpaid postage will appear the same as a more reliable seller. This renders the feedback system useless in this kind of case. It also makes it hard to find reliable sellers, and encourages less reliable sellers to remain in the system.
Re: Buyer sued for posting factual negative review on eBay
#20Both parties don't come off well here - the buyer could have given the seller the benefit of the doubt before posting a negative feedback over a trivial amount and the seller managed to turn an unjustified, in my opinion, negative feedback into a terrible publicity for itself.
I think there is more context to the situation than what is discussed in the original post. Is the company generally an honest entity who always put their customers in front of everything and this was a one-time mistake? Or do they routinely "forget" to pay for postage and hope no one noties. etc.