HotUKDeals (FO.LK) rules & guidelines agreement prior to "For Sale/Trade" listing submission - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

All Comments

(39) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
To distance HotUKDeals/FO.LK site representatives from legal proceedings in the event of dispute during "For Sale / Trade" transactions do you think it would be a worthwhile exercise to complement the "[STOP]: Please read the FS/FT rules before submitting a sale or trade item" text shown during the listing submission process with a mandatory check-box to indicate the FS/FT rules have been read *and* accepted prior to submitting a listing (at HotUKDeals &/or FO.LK)?

Reference (although please keep comments in this Feedback thread to avoid unfairly 'bumping' the original thread in the "For Sale / Trade" forum):

"60gbPS3 Console - Boxed with 1 Controller - UPDATED"
[ http://www.hotukdeals.com/for-sale-trade/60gbps3-console-boxed-with-1-contro/821845 ]

The "FS/FT rules" (& guidelines) thread, also for reference:
[ http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/13761/updated-for-sale-forum-rules-and-gu ]

BFN,

fp.
#2
fanpages
So comments can be moved to the feedback section (to avoid unfair 'bumping' of this thread):HotUKDeals (FO.LK) rules & guidelines agreement prior to "For Sale/Trade" listing submissionBFN,fp.

This comment seems hypocritical from the thread, your post was not really needed there as you have posted a thread regarding the topic.

On this topic note.

http://www.hotukdeals.com/feedback/sticky-s-do-we-need-them/833269

In this thread, admin states:

Admin
The banner idea in fs/ft is a good one.Generally I don't think we need stickies. They get in the way of the page content.

Where as I think the above is more likely to happen (links to rules, guidelines, and help topics), I would welcome your idea, though I really don't think it would change anything to the way people make such mistakes in threads and won't really do much to change there attitudes, as they agree to the rules everytime they post, though no real mention is made of agreement.

I would also like that to be added to the original rules page here and the one on Fo.lk, though I would of thought posting is agreement to the rules.


NOTE: A bigger problem from that thread and the current rules, I would say is the fact that no mention of postage is made about responsibility regarding sellers to arrange postage. Though I'm pretty much sure it was there before, think this needs to be rectified if not already in the process of doing so.

EDIT: I have already a thread up regarding postage costs being added to a thread and not to be added, I think both these points need to addressed as soon as possible. As that thread lays out that the ruling no longer applies currently.

Edited By: Adam2050 on Jan 07, 2011 01:14: .
#3
Thanks for your reply, Adam.

Adam2050
This comment seems hypocritical from the thread, your post was not really needed there as you have posted a thread regarding the topic.


I just wanted to highlight I had created this thread to bring closure to the discussions in the original "For Sale / Trade" listing as the buyer/seller stated they would discuss by "Private Message" but then another comment was posted.

The further comment was relevant, though. I was as guilty as any other member in that thread of unfairly 'bumping' it above everybody else's "For Sale / Trade" listing too.

adam2050
...I would welcome your idea, though I really don't think it would change anything to the way people make such mistakes in threads and won't really do much to change there attitudes, as they agree to the rules every time they post, though no real mention is made of agreement....


It probably would not stop all the 'mistakes', but it may make somebody stop & think that they had not read the rules (recently).

Granted, those that use the "For Sale / Trade" forum regularly would just get in the habit of checking the box & continuing without reading the rules/guidelines (again).

However, perhaps this can be addressed by enforcing another action if the rules had been changed since the last time that member checked the "I confirm I have read & agree to the rules..." option to alert the member to this fact.

There is a valuable lesson to learn regarding arranging couriers in the original "For Sale / Trade" thread that I will now be wary of. Maybe some of the discussion there can be lifted into the "rules/guidelines" as well just so nobody makes the same 'mistake' again.

BFN,

fp.
#4
Adam2050
...
NOTE: A bigger problem from that thread and the current rules, I would say is the fact that no mention of postage is made about responsibility regarding sellers to arrange postage. Though I'm pretty much sure it was there before, think this needs to be rectified if not already in the process of doing so.

EDIT: I have already a thread up regarding postage costs being added to a thread and not to be added, I think both these points need to addressed as soon as possible. As that thread lays out that the ruling no longer applies currently.


Yes, I spotted that as well during aSB's comments.

Additionally, the comment about the tracking aspect of a postal method is for the benefit of the seller, not for the benefit of the buyer. This leads me to believe that there may be discussions arising in threads were a buyer asks for a non-insured &/or a postal method that does not require a signature on delivery, & the seller refuses to post on those terms.

The buyer replies to say that such a method is for the benefit of the seller so the buyer should not be expected to pay for it; the cost of the additional service(s) should be met by the seller & the buyer should only be expected to pay for standard delivery.

BFN,

fp.
#5
fanpages
Adam2050
...NOTE: A bigger problem from that thread and the current rules, I would say is the fact that no mention of postage is made about responsibility regarding sellers to arrange postage. Though I'm pretty much sure it was there before, think this needs to be rectified if not already in the process of doing so. EDIT: I have already a thread up regarding postage costs being added to a thread and not to be added, I think both these points need to addressed as soon as possible. As that thread lays out that the ruling no longer applies currently.
Yes, I spotted that as well during aSB's comments.Additionally, the comment about the tracking aspect of a postal method is for the benefit of the seller, not for the benefit of the buyer. This leads me to believe that there may be discussions arising in threads were a buyer asks for a non-insured &/or a postal method that does not require a signature on delivery, & the seller refuses to post on those terms.The buyer replies to say that such a method is for the benefit of the seller so the buyer should not be expected to pay for it; the cost of the additional service(s) should be met by the seller & the buyer should only be expected to pay for standard delivery.BFN,fp.

This would only apply to items being posted via courier, but a solution to this method is for the buyer to arrange a delivery. As, by law, as I have successfully (I feel) argued in the thread regarding the 60GB PS3 you linked to fanpages, the transfer of ownership occurs at the point of hand-over to the courier. At that point the HUkD rules have been satisfied, as long as the item was in full working condition at that point. Therefore the buyer has the liberty of using whichever courier they feel like, so if they choose to use a courier which doesn't afford them any insurance, it is completely at their own risk.

This obviously doesn't extend to items which are posted using the Royal Mail as the delivery service, as the seller must arrange for the delivery, rather than the buyer arranging for collection.

Josh
#6
r3tract
fanpages
Adam2050
...NOTE: A bigger problem from that thread and the current rules, I would say is the fact that no mention of postage is made about responsibility regarding sellers to arrange postage. Though I'm pretty much sure it was there before, think this needs to be rectified if not already in the process of doing so. EDIT: I have already a thread up regarding postage costs being added to a thread and not to be added, I think both these points need to addressed as soon as possible. As that thread lays out that the ruling no longer applies currently.
Yes, I spotted that as well during aSB's comments.Additionally, the comment about the tracking aspect of a postal method is for the benefit of the seller, not for the benefit of the buyer. This leads me to believe that there may be discussions arising in threads were a buyer asks for a non-insured &/or a postal method that does not require a signature on delivery, & the seller refuses to post on those terms.The buyer replies to say that such a method is for the benefit of the seller so the buyer should not be expected to pay for it; the cost of the additional service(s) should be met by the seller & the buyer should only be expected to pay for standard delivery.BFN,fp.
This would only apply to items being posted via courier, but a solution to this method is for the buyer to arrange a delivery. As, by law, as I have successfully (I feel) argued in the thread regarding the 60GB PS3 you linked to fanpages, the transfer of ownership occurs at the point of hand-over to the courier. At that point the HUkD rules have been satisfied, as long as the item was in full working condition at that point. Therefore the buyer has the liberty of using whichever courier they feel like, so if they choose to use a courier which doesn't afford them any insurance, it is completely at their own risk.This obviously doesn't extend to items which are posted using the Royal Mail as the delivery service, as the seller must arrange for the delivery, rather than the buyer arranging for collection.Josh

Whether it's legal or not, I think HUKD leaves it up to the buyer not just because it's easier to claim but because it's easier to handle and more likely to get sorted as the seller. One way of doing one way of solving. I understand what you said in there, but I hope they keep it up to the seller to send and make it an inforecable rule again.
#7
Yes, Josh, your comments were very helpful regarding transfer of ownership (or transfer of responsibility of ownership) when a courier is involved in the exchange of goods. Thank you.

I am crossing into Adam's existing "FS/FT/Fo.LK What's going on with postage?" feedback thread now, but for the purposes of clarification of my subsequent discussion point:

I was extending the discussion to when a seller wishes to use, say, Royal Mail Recorded (Signed For) Delivery, or Royal Mail Special Delivery, & the buyer wants Second Class standard delivery (or similar).

The buyer could argue that Second Class standard is adequate & makes an offer for the item based on that delivery service, but the seller wishes to send the item by a method that provides tracking (for peace of mind in case the package is not received; to cover the interests of both parties) &/or wishes to send an item of significant value using an insured delivery method (so that the level of compensation in the event of loss/damage is sufficient). Recorded (Signed For) Delivery will only compensate up to 100 times the value of a first class stamp.

The seller asks for a certain amount to cover postage costs & the buyer retorts with "...but that is for your benefit, not mine" & refuses to pay extra.

On one occasion in my trading at HotUKDeals I send something to a member that was not able to be tracked & the buyer claimed it never arrived. After some further exchanges I was out of pocket with the loss of the item & the refund of the buyer's payment.

I know you can gain a "Proof of Posting" (certificate, or receipt as it is now) but from my experience I no longer despatch anything by a service any less than Royal Mail Recorded (Signed For) Delivery.

...

Just to confirm:
Although the discussion in this thread may move to other aspects (that may, or may not, be covered in Adam's thread), I would like to reiterate my original intentions that the acceptance of the trading rules/guidelines (not just an optional link) may help HotUKDeals/FO.LK not being held (partly) responsible in the event of a dispute (as was mentioned in the "For Sale" thread for the console) should the involvement of a small claims court be necessary for resolution.

The existence of terms & conditions of usage of the site (forum) is not necessary any indication of acceptance.

BFN,

fp.
1 Like #8
fanpages
The existence of terms & conditions of usage of the site (forum) is not necessary any indication of acceptance.BFN,fp.

I have to disagree, completely, with you on this point. ( I would say I am reasonably knowledgeable in this area of law, working regularly in this field - Contract Law, explicit, implicit T&Cs etc).

As long as a user has been given a chance to read through the T&Cs and has been made aware of their existance, i.e on HUkD, at both point of sign-up and the regular floating banner below the headeings, then they need not let HUkD know that they have read them. It is completely up to the user, by law, to have read them if they need to rely upon them. Ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law.

The fact that the T&Cs of the use of the HUkDs service are readily available is sufficient protection for the site, as if a member uses the service offered by the website to post items for sale, then by their actions their intention is clear that they wish to comply with the T&Cs and is thus deemed an acceptance. This of course does not affect anyone's statutory rights afforded by common law, as T&Cs cannot legally contradict common law.

In the same way, if you use the train services in the UK your action (in using the service) implies that your intention is to abide by the T&Cs. How many people have actually read the rail networks' T&Cs? For example, I doubt a lot of people know that they are not allowed to get off the train a stop early if they have a fixed ticket (even though it would cost the rail company less money if they did). If the rail company charged them extra for a ticket between their station of departure and their new destination, whcih they would be entitled to do, ignorance to the T&Cs would not be seen as a defence as although the T&Cs aren't advertised, it is not necessary for you to acknowledge, either verbally or in writing, your acceptance. Your actions in using the service convey your intention to abide by its T&Cs, as it clearly states on the ticket that you agree to abide by the T&Cs. In the same way your HUkD is clear that you must abide by the T&Cs when you sign up for the service.

I could pull up a case file representing the principle of Law in practice for you if you desire?

Josh




Edited By: r3tract on Jan 07, 2011 09:57: An abundance of typographical errors.
#9
I knew your background, Josh, from our other forum exchanges outside of HotUKDeals.com, hence why I made you aware of the "For Sale / Trade" thread initially (in own main HotUKDeals discussion thread) as I was sure you would find the subject interesting. Does that say something about me, about you, or both of us? ;)

I was aware of the issue with alighting from a train prior to your fixed destination, but equally when you purchase a ticket at a machine in a station you are not made aware the terms & conditions exist. You may not take a copy of them, & you may only be aware of the rules when you broken the rules. That, I agree, is no defence, but if it is not common knowledge the rules exist then the public cannot be expected to adhere to them.

The reverse of a ticket reads, "Travel is subject to National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC) and the conditions of carriage of other operators on whose services this ticket is valid. Copies of the NRCoC can be obtained from any staffed national rail station or from website: http://www.nationarail.co.uk".

You are allowed to purchase a ticket at a station that is not staffed & World Wide Web access is not provided for customer use in advance of purchasing a ticket.

I take the point, but I have an issue with the National Rail for the way in which they assume acceptance without prior notification.

I'll move on for now, but feel free to come back to the point if/when you wish to.


My feeling with HotUKDeals "For Sale / Trade" forum usage is that, as stated in my opening post, the wording or process of acceptance in the Submission form requires attention.

The wording is:
"Please read the FS/FT rules before submitting a sale or trade item".

Note the use of the word "Please"; that is a request, not an instruction & in such, is not binding in my opinion.

The terms of usage cannot be binding as many times you see members "break" the rules, be told they have done so, they apologise if they are that sort of person, but ultimately the "For Sale / Trade" listing is amended without the listing ending.

Are you of the view that if one term/condition is broken, the whole contract should be voided &, hence, the listing should end? If the listing does not end, then the rest of the rules are not enforceable (legally) thereafter?

Or are you of the view that if one term/condition is not adhered to, all other terms remain in effect?

On a day-to-day basis, everybody just gets on with the "guidelines" (the term "rules" & "guidelines" also should not be interchangeable as they seem to be at HotUKDeals but that, again, is a further discussion point).

However, the example I referred to above regarding the potential involvement of the small claims court may be able to pick holes in the way in which the terms are worded, are presented, or the fact that there is no indication about when the terms are amended, so a member who has "accepted" them on one occasion, cannot be reasonable expecting to re-read them on each & every listing submission. (Yes, you may subscribe to the thread were the rules/guidelines are maintained, but that is not mandatory either).

I personally do, or I at least check this thread has not changed since the last time I created a listing (& I save a copy of the thread offline to refer to later if the guidelines/rules change whilst my thread is active), but I am a sort of person who does that on each & every occasion I use a web site, or purchase anything in "the high street" if I am asked to accept Terms & Conditions that I have not had sight of (hence why I am aware of the "fixed destination" penalty!).

Thank you for your offer of providing references your closing sentence mentioned. I would be interested, but I'm not sure if everybody else reading this thread would be as well.

BFN,

fp.
#10
fanpages
I knew your background, Josh, from our other forum exchanges outside of HotUKDeals.com, hence why I made you aware of the "For Sale / Trade" thread initially (in own main HotUKDeals discussion thread) as I was sure you would find the subject interesting. Does that say something about me, about you, or both of us? ;)I was aware of the issue with alighting from a train prior to your fixed destination, but equally when you purchase a ticket at a machine in a station you are not made aware the terms & conditions exist. You may not take a copy of them, & you may only be aware of the rules when you broken the rules. That, I agree, is no defence, but if it is not common knowledge the rules exist then the public cannot be expected to adhere to them.The reverse of a ticket reads, "Travel is subject to National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC) and the conditions of carriage of other operators on whose services this ticket is valid. Copies of the NRCoC can be obtained from any staffed national rail station or from website:http://www.nationarail.co.uk".You are allowed to purchase a ticket at a station that is not staffed & World Wide Web access is not provided for customer use in advance of purchasing a ticket.I take the point, but I have an issue with the National Rail for the way in which they assume acceptance without prior notification.I'll move on for now, but feel free to come back to the point if/when you wish to.My feeling with HotUKDeals "For Sale / Trade" forum usage is that, as stated in my opening post, the wording or process of acceptance in the Submission form requires attention.The wording is:"Please read the FS/FT rules before submitting a sale or trade item".Note the use of the word "Please"; that is a request, not an instruction & in such, is not binding in my opinion.The terms of usage cannot be binding as many times you see members "break" the rules, be told they have done so, they apologise if they are that sort of person, but ultimately the "For Sale / Trade" listing is amended without the listing ending.Are you of the view that if one term/condition is broken, the whole contract should be voided &, hence, the listing should end? If the listing does not end, then the rest of the rules are not enforceable (legally) thereafter?Or are you of the view that if one term/condition is not adhered to, all other terms remain in effect?On a day-to-day basis, everybody just gets on with the "guidelines" (the term "rules" & "guidelines" also should not be interchangeable as they seem to be at HotUKDeals but that, again, is a further discussion point).However, the example I referred to above regarding the potential involvement of the small claims court may be able to pick holes in the way in which the terms are worded, are presented, or the fact that there is no indication about when the terms are amended, so a member who has "accepted" them on one occasion, cannot be reasonable expecting to re-read them on each & every listing submission. (Yes, you may subscribe to the thread were the rules/guidelines are maintained, but that is not mandatory either). I personally do, or I at least check this thread has not changed since the last time I created a listing (& I save a copy of the thread offline to refer to later if the guidelines/rules change whilst my thread is active), but I am a sort of person who does that on each & every occasion I use a web site, or purchase anything in "the high street" if I am asked to accept Terms & Conditions that I have not had sight of (hence why I am aware of the "fixed destination" penalty!).Thank you for your offer of providing references your closing sentence mentioned. I would be interested, but I'm not sure if everybody else reading this thread would be as well.BFN,fp.

Do you know what I find particularly intersting, that I never realised until now, and in some way makes all of this discussion null and void.

I have been going under the assumption that the site contains legally enforceable T&Cs when in actual fact, having just 'logged out' and hit the 'register' button there are no T&Cs, merely 'Rules and Regulation'. These have no legal power whatsoever, the same can be said of the 'FS/FT Rules', they are just that, rules, not terms. Therefore you are not bound, when dealing with someone through HUkD, to the rules in a legal sense, however there can and will be reprecussions for not adhering to them, enforced by the moderators and admin of the web site. So in actual fact, HUkD as an entity are not bound by law to perform any service, as far as assisting in court cases as they are not forming a contract with any user.

Thus, a user disadvantaged by HUkD not enforcing the rules upon another user, could never take HUkD to court becasue they hadn't enforced the rules. Neither could HUkD's rules be used to build a case upon, as they count for nothing in a court.

Moderators are free to enforce the rules as they choose, obviously it makes sense if they are consistent with one another, otherwise users will get frustrated and visit other websites. If they choose to let someone off and not close their thread, while allowing them to change it to accomodate the rules, that is absolutely fine.

Just as an aside, even if the user entered into a contract with HUkDs (If HUkDs had 'Terms of use'), and there were T&Cs governing the 'FS/FT' section, a moderator still would not be obliged to terminate a listing, upon a user breaching the agreed T&Cs and thus the contract. This is because even if one party breaches a contract, it doesn't immediately terminate the contract, the party 'damaged' by the contract (in this case HUkD) may choose to continue the contract, but the offending party must then start to abide by the T&Cs set out in the contract. So a moderator could ask the user to change their listing so that it conforms to the T&Cs.

Another interesting point, is that, I'm not sure HUkD would ever be able to set T&Cs for the 'FS/FT' section by itself, as strictly speaking, I don't think a contract could be legally formed, as their would be no 'consideration' (needed for a contract to be binding) offered by each user to HUkD. (It would be possible, I think, to have T&Cs for joining HUkD, as the consideration offered by each user would be the generation of revenue through clicked links, finding deals etc. These T&Cs could then include a Term stating that the 'FS/FT' rules must be adhered to to continue using the service.)

Going back to national rail. I do agree with you that on unmanned stations, it is slightly unfair to be able to buy a ticket without being able to see the T&Cs. I know what the argument against that would be.

Anything freely and easily available online is now, generally considered to be accessible by all. Bit ironic given that most of the unmanned station will be in the areas where internet access is at its least accessible!

Josh
#11
I know this isn't misc but I can't help it, this is the most boring thread ever and like the daft postage thread is creating problems were none actually exist.
#12
ants97
I know this isn't misc but I can't help it, this is the most boring thread ever and like the daft postage thread is creating problems were none actually exist.

So tempted to correct your grammar, but I'll refrain. :)

I do find it amusing that you've taken the time to read it, if you find it boring though.

'To one man, cricket is as dull as the dark side of the moon, to another, more glorious than the sun in all it's splendour.' - Anon.

Josh
banned#13
I thought I'd already made reference in the previous thread that whilst a legal opinion may differ, it's irrelevant to our house rules.

As for the main point, all members are invited to review the rules, by means of an additional info bar, prior to submitting the thread. There might be an issue in the sense that some new members might not be aware e.g. 1st time buyers, so we'll certainly review it from that aspect.
#14
Was Anon. was too bored to put his or her name to that comment?

Thanks for your input, ants97.

If HotUKDeals were to be requested to defend themselves in the small claims court it would not be a pointless thread.

BFN,

fp.
#15
regarding the ps3 console

aScottishBloke
xsazzyjayx
I appreciate you're out of pocket - but I now have a faulty console that was never like this on leaving me. I'm asking you to make a claim with your courier as you arranged everything & have no details.If I'd arranged the courier I'd have refunded you & made the claim straightaway. Now it seems I'm at your mercy as it's you who needs to make the claim but you're adament they've not damaged it - it is clearly evident something has happened in transit as it was working here, freezing at your end during games - now it won't even turn on!
The seller is responsible for ensuring the goods get to the buyer in the condition described. The fact that you sub contracted the postage out to another party (just so happens to be the buyer) is irrelevant and something you must bear in mind for future trades.I'm expecting you to ensure the buyer receives a refund, however I'm not saying when this should be made as there is a claims process to consider. However it's you that has sold yourself short here by passing the buck on postage.

could you not argue that the buyer subcontracted collection to a third party?? as the buyer was the one who arranged the courier
#16
aScottishBloke
I thought I'd already made reference in the previous thread that whilst a legal opinion may differ, it's irrelevant to our house rules.

As for the main point, all members are invited to review the rules, by means of an additional info bar, prior to submitting the thread. There might be an issue in the sense that some new members might not be aware e.g. 1st time buyers, so we'll certainly review it from that aspect.


Thanks.

The guidelines are just that, then. A guide to site usage. The Moderator who reviews a thread when requested (or at their own discretion) may act differently to any other, though.

Fortunately, most decisions are consistent because they are handled (in the main) by one (or two) site representatives.

It is important to reiterate, though, that HotUKDeals has no responsibility directly, or indirectly, for the trading that is undertaken.

BFN,

fp.
banned#17
fanpages
Was Anon. was too bored to put his or her name to that comment?

Thanks for your input, ants97.

If HotUKDeals were to be requested to defend themselves in the small claims court it would not be a pointless thread.

BFN,

fp.



Sure, 1st class tickets from NZ please, I'd be happy to bring along a print out of the trading guidelines.



We have always made our position clear that it's a private agreement between both parties to the trade.


Caveat Emptor.
Do NOT proceed with a deal until you are completely satisfied with all details being correct. It’s in your best interest to check out these details yourself. The trading forums are the equivalent to a newspaper’s classified section, We cannot be held responsible nor can we vouch for any listings or sales/trades in this forum. Use your head, follow the guidelines, evaluate the risk and make your own decision


If anon had stopped at the 1st part of the quote, you could safely assume he/she is Scottish.
#18
In regards to the postage rules as a whole are these under review?

As currently there is nothing in the guidelines/rules for users to follow. Which is also a reference point not just for the users but for the admin too.
banned#19
spannerz
regarding the ps3 console
could you not argue that the buyer subcontracted collection to a third party?? as the buyer was the one who arranged the courier


As mentioned in the original thread, there might be a different interpretation in a court of law, but that's irrelevant here. If a member fails to adhere to our conditions of trading, we'll restrict/remove their rights to use that particular forum. At the end of the day, If a member doesn't agree with our trading guidelines, they should refrain from posting in the FS/FT section.

We always advise members to exchange and verify personal details prior to payment. That way, both parties have a suitable point of contact should issues need to be resolved elsewhere.
#20
aScottishBloke
I thought I'd already made reference in the previous thread that whilst a legal opinion may differ, it's irrelevant to our house rules.As for the main point, all members are invited to review the rules, by means of an additional info bar, prior to submitting the thread. There might be an issue in the sense that some new members might not be aware e.g. 1st time buyers, so we'll certainly review it from that aspect.

Already ahead of you aSB see post #10 of this thread :)


spannerz
regarding the ps3 console
aScottishBloke
xsazzyjayx
I appreciate you're out of pocket - but I now have a faulty console that was never like this on leaving me. I'm asking you to make a claim with your courier as you arranged everything & have no details.If I'd arranged the courier I'd have refunded you & made the claim straightaway. Now it seems I'm at your mercy as it's you who needs to make the claim but you're adament they've not damaged it - it is clearly evident something has happened in transit as it was working here, freezing at your end during games - now it won't even turn on!
The seller is responsible for ensuring the goods get to the buyer in the condition described. The fact that you sub contracted the postage out to another party (just so happens to be the buyer) is irrelevant and something you must bear in mind for future trades.I'm expecting you to ensure the buyer receives a refund, however I'm not saying when this should be made as there is a claims process to consider. However it's you that has sold yourself short here by passing the buck on postage.
could you not argue that the buyer subcontracted collection to a third party?? as the buyer was the one who arranged the courier

That's the legal argument as to why in a court of law, assuming the damage was proven to be done by the courier, the seller wouldn't need to refund. I've already put accross that point in the main thread.

However that is irrelevant as what is at stake is the persons membership, which is governed not by law but by the house rules. My view is that the 'FS/FT' rule regarding delivery of this site are ambiguous when it comes to the transfer of ownership, it's not clear whether it's when the buyer receives it in person, or when he takes possession of it, if you follow. Because of this ambiguity, the seller could end up losing her account if no refund is given.


fanpages
Was Anon. was too bored to put his or her name to that comment?Thanks for your input, ants97.If HotUKDeals were to be requested to defend themselves in the small claims court it would not be a pointless thread.BFN,fp.

As author of the quote, I have the right to reamin anonymous... oh wait.. oO

Josh

Edited By: r3tract on Jan 07, 2011 13:52
banned#21
Adam2050
In regards to the postage rules as a whole are these under review?

As currently there is nothing in the guidelines/rules for users to follow. Which is also a reference point not just for the users but for the admin too.


With regards to the postage issue, we would still wish the price listed to represent the requested asking price of the item, not the fully inclusive price of the item plus postage. The reason behind this is that we have rules in place to ensure that no profiteering/trader like scenarios take place here. It's easy to do a like for like comparison on the item offered, but gets too fuzzy when postage factors are added in. We don't know how much p&p will be, nor do want to get involved in a debate as to whether the p&p price is reasonable or not. Members will be able to decide for themselves I do think it would be helpful if members indicated the p&p price within the relevant section (postage/payment) when listing their item. This might prevent unnecessary bumps and keeps the forums flowing smoothly.

Edited By: aScottishBloke on Jan 07, 2011 14:02
#22
"(2) Goods remain the responsibility of the seller until the buyer takes possession and affirms they are okay. For this reason be honest in your descriptions and include original photos so the buyer knows what they are getting! Also, use a form of insured and signed for delivery to ensure any shipping/delivery mishaps will be covered."


There are two key assumption made in this rule:

1)That possession and the buyer physical having the item are cocurrent.

and that

2) The seller organises the delivery

The problem is that these are not always true. If a seller requests that collection is made, whether that is in person or by a subcontracted third party (i.e a courier), the fact remains that quite clearly the risk of carriage has passed on to the buyer the moment the parcel leaves the sellers possesion.

Perhaps it would be wiser for a house rule to contain a caveat that if a buyer organises collection, it is deemed that from then on the item's/s' condition during carriage is at their own risk. The buyer of course is able to request, during negotiation, that carriage be organised by the seller, leaving them the seller to hold the risk.

Or you could, instead just create a blanket rule stating that delivery must be arranged by the seller, so that there is no chance of a similar situation arising?

Josh
1 Like #23
aScottishBloke

Sure, 1st class tickets from NZ please, I'd be happy to bring along a print out of the trading guidelines.


Unless you are a Director or Executive partner of the organisation trading with the HotUKDeals(.com) name, aSB, I'm sorry to say you're going to have to buy the tickets yourself.

Don't do that at an unmanned station though without reading the conditions of travel.

BFN,

fp.
#24
fanpages
aScottishBloke
Sure, 1st class tickets from NZ please, I'd be happy to bring along a print out of the trading guidelines.
Unless you are a Director or Executive partner of the organisation trading with the HotUKDeals(.com) name, aSB, I'm sorry to say you're going to have to buy the tickets yourself.Don't do that at an unmanned station though without reading the conditions of travel.BFN,fp.

lol
#25
fanpages
aScottishBloke
Sure, 1st class tickets from NZ please, I'd be happy to bring along a print out of the trading guidelines.
Unless you are a Director or Executive partner of the organisation trading with the HotUKDeals(.com) name, aSB, I'm sorry to say you're going to have to buy the tickets yourself.Don't do that at an unmanned station though without reading the conditions of travel.BFN,fp.

"Like"d. :)

Josh
#26
aScottishBloke
Adam2050
null
With regards to the postage issue, we would still wish the price listed to represent the requested asking price of the item, not the fully inclusive price of the item plus postage. The reason behind this is that we have rules in place to ensure that no profiteering/trader like scenarios take place here. It's easy to do a like for like comparison on the item offered, but gets too fuzzy when postage factors are added in. We don't know how much p&p will be, nor do want to get involved in a debate as to whether the p&p price is reasonable or not. Members will be able to decide for themselves I do think it would be helpful if members indicated the p&p price within the relevant section (postage/payment) when listing their item. This might prevent unnecessary bumps and keeps the forums flowing smoothly.

Fair enough but I do not think that solves the issue of no rules currently being in place regarding sellers responsbilities when it comes to postage.

On the issue of profiteering, arguing postage costs makes no difference when people start a thread or if they post the price within the thread it's still the same thing as I what I am asking for or suggesting. I never asked the admin team to make price in the title or price in the section inclusive of postage compulsary, I have only asked that postage price be in the relevant section be compulsary for each item when starting a thread, if in bulk threads this is not inforcable, which I really can't see why not as if someones going to profiteer its going to stand out like a sore thumb then I stand by that but for singular items I really don't see the need not to enforce a compulsary inclusion of postage in the relevant section. This means both are seperate when it comes to checking up on people profiteering.

Though I really do believe the profiteering rule is a very lapse one to bring the conclusion under. But if that's the final view for now, not a lot I can do about. I would suggest you post both responses in the relevant threads and lock them if no further can be discussed.

Edited By: Adam2050 on Jan 07, 2011 14:23: Spellzor. Swear I could be slightly Dyslexic
#27
aScottishBloke

As mentioned in the original thread, there might be a different interpretation in a court of law, but that's irrelevant here. If a member fails to adhere to our conditions of trading, we'll restrict/remove their rights to use that particular forum. At the end of the day, If a member doesn't agree with our trading guidelines, they should refrain from posting in the FS/FT section.


That brings me back to the opening point:

Should there be a method of indicating agreement/acceptance of the trading guidelines (or "FS/FT rules" as they are referred to during the submission form) or are you (now, after this discussion, or from your previous stance) happy that HotUKDeals (Maple Syrup Media)'s interests are covered?

BFN,

fp.
#28
Adam2050
saw thumb

This is a sore thumb, but also a 'saw thumb', if you understand what I mean - maybe I just have an abstract mind.
http://tablesawaccidents.com/user/cimage/table-saw-thumb-inury.JPG

Josh

Edited By: r3tract on Jan 07, 2011 14:23: Explanation of the picture.
banned#29
I'm not sure that we need to record the fact that members have accepted the agreement each and every time they list. Perhaps I'm not fully appreciative of the purpose it would serve, other than to perhaps become an irritating (and soon to be ignored) tick box. There's still an issue with first time buyers and those sellers that are responding to a wanted ad. I'm sure we'll find a solution that will give a reminder for those members to review the rules (perhaps something as simple as a conditional reminder where feedback is less than 1).
#30
aScottishBloke
I'm not sure that we need to record the fact that members have accepted the agreement each and every time they list. Perhaps I'm not fully appreciative of the purpose it would serve, other than to perhaps become an irritating (and soon to be ignored) tick box. There's still an issue with first time buyers and those sellers that are responding to a wanted ad. I'm sure we'll find a solution that will give a reminder for those members to review the rules (perhaps something as simple as a conditional reminder where feedback is less than 1).

Already suggested a sticky link replacement for rules and help, that should be on every page of the FS/FT. On completetion of a thread you could get the users simply to review a popup of the rules on, doesn't need a check box or nothing just a scroll bar and accept could be the close button, and disagree could be a cancel button.
banned#31
Adam2050
Fair enough but I do not think that solves the issue of no rules currently being in place regarding sellers responsbilities when it comes to postage.

On the issue of profiteering, arguing postage costs makes no difference when people start a thread or if they post the price within the thread it's still the same thing as I what I am asking for or suggesting. I never asked the admin team to make price in the title or price in the section inclusive of postage compulsary, I have only asked that postage price be in the relevant section be compulsary for each item when starting a thread, if in bulk threads this is not inforcable, which I really can't see why not as if someones going to profiteer its going to stand out like a saw thumb then I stand by that but for singular items I really don't see the need not to enforce a compulsary inclusion of postage in the relevant section. This means both are seperate when it comes to checking up on people profiteering.

Though I really do believe the profiteering rule is a very lapse one to bring the conclusion under. But if that's the final view for now, not a lot I can do about. I would suggest you post both responses in the relevant threads and lock them if no further can be discussed.


I only mentioned that profiteering point as it had been referenced in another thread as to why don't we just have an inclusive price. That situation works well when the selling price inc delivery is lower than the rrp elsewhere.

I think the postage option should be answered, although there are many reasons as to why an OP may not complete this at the point of listing.

a) they generally don't have an idea and will do it at cost price (to be notified later)
b) they gain a free bump by members asking.

Now I think the issue is probably more to do with latter point. It has been reported by several users that some members do appear to be gaining an unfair promotion by failing to disclose postage charges. If this turns out to be the case, then we'll certainly act, but we haven't seen significant volumes reported as yet to make a decision. We will however monitor.
#32
aScottishBloke
Adam2050
Fair enough but I do not think that solves the issue of no rules currently being in place regarding sellers responsbilities when it comes to postage.On the issue of profiteering, arguing postage costs makes no difference when people start a thread or if they post the price within the thread it's still the same thing as I what I am asking for or suggesting. I never asked the admin team to make price in the title or price in the section inclusive of postage compulsary, I have only asked that postage price be in the relevant section be compulsary for each item when starting a thread, if in bulk threads this is not inforcable, which I really can't see why not as if someones going to profiteer its going to stand out like a saw thumb then I stand by that but for singular items I really don't see the need not to enforce a compulsary inclusion of postage in the relevant section. This means both are seperate when it comes to checking up on people profiteering. Though I really do believe the profiteering rule is a very lapse one to bring the conclusion under. But if that's the final view for now, not a lot I can do about. I would suggest you post both responses in the relevant threads and lock them if no further can be discussed.
I only mentioned that profiteering point as it had been referenced in another thread as to why don't we just have an inclusive price. That situation works well when the selling price inc delivery is lower than the rrp elsewhere.I think the postage option should be answered, although there are many reasons as to why an OP may not complete this at the point of listing.a) they generally don't have an idea and will do it at cost price (to be notified later)b) they gain a free bump by members asking.Now I think the issue is probably more to do with latter point. It has been reported by several users that some members do appear to be gaining an unfair promotion by failing to disclose postage charges. If this turns out to be the case, then we'll certainly act, but we haven't seen significant volumes reported as yet to make a decision. We will however monitor.

Thanks ASB for your replies.

In answer to:

A) Shouldn't really be an excuse (As you can take time here to list correctly)
B) Happens sometimes without the knowledge of the OP, but theres one or two that do it regularly so they know it works, been tempted to do it myself but then I would be nothing more then a hypocrite.

Glad to see you will monitor reports and take further action if needed.

FS/FT rules
Josh where was this grabbed from?
"(2) Goods remain the responsibility of the seller until the buyer takes possession and affirms they are okay. For this reason be honest in your descriptions and include original photos so the buyer knows what they are getting! Also, use a form of insured and signed for delivery to ensure any shipping/delivery mishaps will be covered."

#33
aScottishBloke
I think the postage option should be answered, although there are many reasons as to why an OP may not complete this at the point of listing.

a) they generally don't have an idea and will do it at cost price (to be notified later)
b) they gain a free bump by members asking.

Now I think the issue is probably more to do with latter point.[/b]


The rules (or guidelines, now...not quite sure) state:

Do not bump your threads excessively. It's not fair on other users. Three bumps per thread are allowed. Any unnecessary comments will be classed as bumps.

I think it needs clarification as to what is deemed as a bump. Unless it's spelt out to people, how are they supposed to now for certain? I see comments regarding postage costs as part of the negotiation process though personally.

Same with photos. Some people reserve posts and upload later, while others do it straight away - this can cause a delay while they take pics, upload to photobucket etc. Are the latter people in the wrong (as I've seen this classed as bumping)?? Nothing in the rules to say either way.

The rules worked well when FS/FT (and the site in general) was small. It's that big now though, the whole thing (rules, process, structure) needs a complete overhaul imo.

As for the issue of buyer arranging collection, surely that should then pass ownership of good over to them once colllected, as the courier is acting as an 'agent' on their behalf. It would be the buyer who would have to make a claim with the courier, so as far as I can see the item is then their responsibility.

What if I wanted to buy a console that was 200 miles away that was collection only. My Uncle lives in the same town and is coming to visit me next week, so I arrange with the seller for him to pick it up on my behalf. Is any damage caused to it by my uncle the responsibility of the seller to resolve, as it hasn't yet arrived with me?


Edited By: midlandscomics on Jan 07, 2011 14:49
#34
midlandscomics
aScottishBloke
I think the postage option should be answered, although there are many reasons as to why an OP may not complete this at the point of listing.a) they generally don't have an idea and will do it at cost price (to be notified later)b) they gain a free bump by members asking.Now I think the issue is probably more to do with latter point.[/b]
The rules (or guidelines...not quite sure) state:Do not bump your threads excessively. It's not fair on other users. Three bumps per thread are allowed. Any unnecessary comments will be classed as bumps. I think it needs clarification as to what is deemed as a bump. Unless it's spelt out to people, how are they supposed to now for certain? I see comments regarding postage costs as part of the negotiation process though personally.Same with photos. Some people reserve posts and upload later, while others do it straight away - this can cause a delay while they take pics, upload to photobucket etc. Are the latter people in the wrong (as I've seen this classed as bumping)?? Nothing in the rules to say either way.The rules worked well when FS/FT (and the site in general) was small. It's that big now though, the whole thing (rules, process, structure) needs a complete overhaul imo.

Hence my want for postage to be clear at the beginning of every thread.

Photos has been sorted, if a person bumps a thread asking for photos and no photo has been uploaded or reserved at the start of a thread it's classed as a bump. (This is common sense)

Though I agree they could make it clearer but it's where do you end it.
#35
Adam2050


Hence my want for postage to be clear at the beginning of every thread.

Photos has been sorted, if a person bumps a thread asking for photos and no photo has been uploaded or reserved at the start of a thread it's classed as a bump. (This is common sense)

Though I agree they could make it clearer but it's where do you end it.


See, this to me is subjective. If a thread is 10 mins old and then someone posts a pic I wouldn't class that as bumping. Bumping to me is getting an old thread to the top of the pile, not one that's only just been created.

Perhaps if there was someting in the rules saying that people had 15 mins or so from thread creation to get pics added, otherwise each further pic post will class as a bump.

It all comes back to the size of the FS/FT part of the site again though. It's that fast moving, threads can be down on the fourth/fifth page within half an hour (and this is what's causing people to moan). Limiting number of threads might help a bit, but with the number of users I don't think you'll notice that much of a difference. It needs the whole part of the site splitting into categories/sub-categories, as it's become too messy in it's current form

Edited By: midlandscomics on Jan 07, 2011 15:02
#36
midlandscomics
Adam2050
Hence my want for postage to be clear at the beginning of every thread.Photos has been sorted, if a person bumps a thread asking for photos and no photo has been uploaded or reserved at the start of a thread it's classed as a bump. (This is common sense)Though I agree they could make it clearer but it's where do you end it.
See, this to me is subjective. If a thread is 10 mins old and then someone posts a pic I wouldn't class that as bumping. Bumping to me is getting an old thread to the top of the pile, not one that's only just been created. Perhaps if there was someting in the rules saying that people had 15 mins or so from thread creation to get pics added, otherwise each further pic post will class as a bump.It all comes back to the size of the FS/FT part of the site again though. It's that fast moving, threads can be down on the fourth/fifth page within half an hour (and this is what's causing people to moan). Limiting number of threads might help a bit, but with the number of users I don't think you'll not that much of a difference. It needs the whole part of the site splitting into categories/sub-categories, as it's become too messy in it's current form

BUMPS work through the discussed tab, so it's bumping in the frame of that, which is where most people trade as it includes new listings and old. But I do agree it needs to be clearer.
#37
Potentially relevant discussion:

[ http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/mod-request/873675?p=10602824 ]

BFN,

fp.
#38
Changed the thread title back from what it is presently:

"FOLK - Rules & Guidelines Agreement Prior To FS/FT Listing Submission"

to the title I originally used:

"HotUKDeals (FO.LK) rules & guidelines agreement prior to "For Sale/Trade" listing submission"

BFN,

fp.
#39
Another potentially relevant discussion:

[ http://www.hotukdeals.com/misc/more-mods-protecting-multi-abuse-1192985 ]

BFN,

fp.

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!