[deleted]
Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
361–363 of 363 posts
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Amazon said they didn't count because they were more than a year old." According to the seller that was Amazon's issue with the receipts. According to Amazon the issue was the receipts provided were either illegible or didn't match records from the manufacturers. In other words they appeared to be faked receipts.
Amazon nowhere says that the invoices appear to be fake. Amazon’s reply is: “Illegible or didn't match records” - Illegible can mean anything, for example older as 365 days, as stated in the article. The second part about records not matching is just company speak to make it look like the vendor is to blame. It’s intentionally vague. My wife worked as a vendor manager at Amazon and she never checked any manufacturer…
Inventory receipt management very much sounds like something that Amazon should have as part of its interface (presuming it's not already). Sellers should be able to upload receipts/purchase orders to their accounts at any time.
It's just good sense to have all of these images available at all time, regardless of selling platform.
Re: Amazon destroys $1.5m of sellers inventory – now homeless
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps this is the issue, having a legal system that you can opt out of. Sounds godawful.
Why is arbitration so bad exactly? The implication seems to be that Amazon has a better chance of winning, but I never see how that is backed up.
This is a late reply, but there are a couple big differences. The courts could create a class action, or join multiple claims. Avoiding a class action, where the individual claims are too expensive to be worth pursuing, but as a whole the wrongdoing is significant is one of the biggest driving forces in mandatory arbitration. But these don't apply to the linked case.
Discovery is more limited with arbitration, third party discovery is very limited, usually use witness statements instead of depositions. Arbitration almost never forms precedent, and arbitrators are not bound by case law/precedent. Decisions made by an arbitrator can only be appealed under more limited circumstances than if made by a judge. This means it is less likely a decision will be made based on the existing law. A court can grant interim relief, generally an arbitrator can not. A court will sanction parties that act in bad faith, in practice an arbitrator will not. A court judgement/sanction/relief can be enforceable in a way that an arbitrators finding would not be. This adds up to in practice making a successful claim more difficult for a wronged consumer
Arbitration is generally cheaper, limited discovery is cheaper. Not being limited to the same evidentiary rules and to respecting precedent allows the arbitrator to make more equitable decisions, that conflict with the law. Arbitration is faster.