Amazon seller threatening to sue me because I won a warranty claim

[swalsh411]

Thank you all for the responses but it appears that posting to this forum gets you many opinions and not a lot of real legal advice. Are there any actual attorneys with consumer law experience posting to this site?

The volunteers here will give you whatever kind of advice they wish, whether it be legal, ethical, or personal. If you only want legal advice, you are free to pay an attorney.

You should return the money. Karma can be a b*tch.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Buyer purchased camera from Amazon. Amazon delegated duty to fulfill order to seller. Seller has a contract with Amazon. Buyer has a contract with Amazon.

Seller does not have a contract with Buyer. Seller has no standing to sue buyer. Seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Buyer should tell seller to pound sand.

 

[AmazonUser]

Karma can be a b*tch.

Hmm if you believe that then apparently the universe has a grudge with the seller. Who am I to mess with the seller's Karma? All I did was file a claim, as is my right, then sat back and allowed Karma to take its course. Another day the chips may have fallen in the sellers favor and I would have been stuck with a really bum deal with little recourse. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

 

[CSO286]

Thank you all for the responses but it appears that posting to this forum gets you many opinions and not a lot of real legal advice. Are there any actual attorneys with consumer law experience posting to this site?

The Amazon A-to-Z claim system is called a "warranty". My purchase was under the umbrella of Amazon.com and is fully covered by this warranty in case anything goes wrong. If I buy something from them and it turns out to be misrepresented by the third party seller, or "materially different" in their words, then their policy is that I am entitled to automatically receive a refund on my claim. It was the seller who tryed to abuse the system by listing an older, lesser model camera item in a different condition, listing it as "Like New" which is trying to cheat to get a "Like New" price when it's not, and then stating otherwise in the comments which is not allowed. Perhaps it was all a mistake on his part but he didn't follow the rules. And he got caught. (And I noticed he had other items listed in the wrong condition and trying to cover it in the comments--he was going to get caught eventually).

When I purchased the item I entered into an agreement with Amazon, part of which includes that I have warranty coverage if the seller sends me something which is "materially different" that what was on the listing page. This coverage is one of the reasons I buy from Amazon and not from some other no-name site. The seller also entered into an agreement with Amazon to honestly represent the items he lists, and not to list for sale a newer 2010 model (II) and then ship the buyer and older, less valuable 2001 model (I). His agreement with Amazon is also to fairly represent the condition of the item, which he also did not do: He listed as "Like New" an item that was clearly used (paint missing) and had no manual or retail packaging.

I consider his letter a baseless threat and he lives in another state with no jurisdiction over my state so if he wants to sue me he would have to come here and file a suit. I highly doubt he has the time or the resources to file a suit he will likely lose because it has already been arbitrated and resolved by Amazon. When the seller signed up to sell on Amazon he agreed to follow their listing guidelines and it's no different from a PayPal dispute or a credit card dispute where PayPal or the card issuer finds in favor of the consumer. I have never heard of a consumer being sued directly in an instance where PayPal or a credit card company found in their favor. I believe there are arbitration laws in effect that protect the consumer from such lawsuits. I have heard of plenty of consumers suing businesses over shady business practices, but I have never in my life heard of a single instance of a business suing a consumer over a payment dispute resolved by a credit card company, etc. Then again I did read about some jackass suing an eBay buyer for simply leaving negative feedback!!

I am not going to respond to this threat except to possibly inform Amazon about it if this person takes additional steps to harass me. I don't necessarily want to do this as this seller could lose their selling privileges (Amazon is VERY strict) but I considered this case closed when Amazon honored my warranty. Once a claim is filed, communication should be through the Amazon claims system and I'm sure that Amazon would frown on a Marketplace seller sending threatening letters directly to an Amazon customer. They consider me their customer, not his, (they won't even give him my email address) and this results in very "poor buyer experience" to use Amazon's words.

If there are any attorneys with experience in this area I would like to hear from them, especially if you know of any cases where a business actually sued a consumer after the consumer received a dispute resolution in their favor from Amazon, PayPal, or their credit car company. Thanks everyone!!

Alrighty, then.

 

[utmostpriority]

Here your go!

Thank you all for the responses but it appears that posting to this forum gets you many opinions and not a lot of real legal advice. Are there any actual attorneys with consumer law experience posting to this site?

The Amazon A-to-Z claim system is called a "warranty". My purchase was under the umbrella of Amazon.com and is fully covered by this warranty in case anything goes wrong. If I buy something from them and it turns out to be misrepresented by the third party seller, or "materially different" in their words, then their policy is that I am entitled to automatically receive a refund on my claim. It was the seller who tryed to abuse the system by listing an older, lesser model camera item in a different condition, listing it as "Like New" which is trying to cheat to get a "Like New" price when it's not, and then stating otherwise in the comments which is not allowed. Perhaps it was all a mistake on his part but he didn't follow the rules. And he got caught. (And I noticed he had other items listed in the wrong condition and trying to cover it in the comments--he was going to get caught eventually).

When I purchased the item I entered into an agreement with Amazon, part of which includes that I have warranty coverage if the seller sends me something which is "materially different" that what was on the listing page. This coverage is one of the reasons I buy from Amazon and not from some other no-name site. The seller also entered into an agreement with Amazon to honestly represent the items he lists, and not to list for sale a newer 2010 model (II) and then ship the buyer and older, less valuable 2001 model (I). His agreement with Amazon is also to fairly represent the condition of the item, which he also did not do: He listed as "Like New" an item that was clearly used (paint missing) and had no manual or retail packaging.

I consider his letter a baseless threat and he lives in another state with no jurisdiction over my state so if he wants to sue me he would have to come here and file a suit. I highly doubt he has the time or the resources to file a suit he will likely lose because it has already been arbitrated and resolved by Amazon. When the seller signed up to sell on Amazon he agreed to follow their listing guidelines and it's no different from a PayPal dispute or a credit card dispute where PayPal or the card issuer finds in favor of the consumer. I have never heard of a consumer being sued directly in an instance where PayPal or a credit card company found in their favor. I believe there are arbitration laws in effect that protect the consumer from such lawsuits. I have heard of plenty of consumers suing businesses over shady business practices, but I have never in my life heard of a single instance of a business suing a consumer over a payment dispute resolved by a credit card company, etc. Then again I did read about some jackass suing an eBay buyer for simply leaving negative feedback!!

I am not going to respond to this threat except to possibly inform Amazon about it if this person takes additional steps to harass me. I don't necessarily want to do this as this seller could lose their selling privileges (Amazon is VERY strict) but I considered this case closed when Amazon honored my warranty. Once a claim is filed, communication should be through the Amazon claims system and I'm sure that Amazon would frown on a Marketplace seller sending threatening letters directly to an Amazon customer. They consider me their customer, not his, (they won't even give him my email address) and this results in very "poor buyer experience" to use Amazon's words.

If there are any attorneys with experience in this area I would like to hear from them, especially if you know of any cases where a business actually sued a consumer after the consumer received a dispute resolution in their favor from Amazon, PayPal, or their credit car company. Thanks everyone!!

By these words, you have finally proven that you have abused the Amazon A and Z thing to rip off an innocent person; your detailed knowledge of the Amazon's claim service convinces me that you are not a good person.
The Amazon A and Z thing is not a warranty, but a service when a buyer has an unresolvable problem with a buyer at Amazon and must be the last resort you should take after making every effort to solve an issue with the buyer. However, your descriptions say nothing about your effort to resolve the problem with the buyer. It is true that the seller should have represent the item correctly and accurately at the first place, but it does not mean that you can make use of his fault to snatch his camera for free by abusing the Amazon's nonsensical claim service.

I believe the buyer must have gone through sleepless nights since you filed the claim without making any effort to solve the issue with him.
Don't live such a pathetic life for a small amount of money.
You know what? You will eventually reap what you sow.
I sincerely wish the seller would sue you and win.

 

[BL]

By these words, you have finally proven that you have abused the Amazon A and Z thing to rip off an innocent person; your detailed knowledge of the Amazon's claim service convinces me that you are not a good person.
The Amazon A and Z thing is not a warranty, but a service when a buyer has an unresolvable problem with a buyer at Amazon and must be the last resort you should take after making every effort to solve an issue with the buyer. However, your descriptions say nothing about your effort to resolve the problem with the buyer. It is true that the seller should have represent the item correctly and accurately at the first place, but it does not mean that you can make use of his fault to snatch his camera for free by abusing the Amazon's nonsensical claim service.

I believe the buyer must have gone through sleepless nights since you filed the claim without making any effort to solve the issue with him.
Don't live such a pathetic life for a small amount of money.
You know what? You will eventually reap what you sow.
I sincerely wish the seller would sue you and win.

And you do not know Amazons processes .The buyer only gets to file a claim after contacting the seller and the issue is either not responded to or the response is unsatisfactory to the buyer from the seller.

Additionally,talking about refunds . If the seller has a refund policy,as said before,that avenue can be used.

You are correct on one statement A-Z claims should be the last resort.

It's not always the buyers fault .There are sellers out there that will hound you after making a claim ,instead of following amazons procedures/policy.

I am aware of the A-Z guarantee myself and have used it several times .

 

[CameronNewport]

When I purchased the item I entered into an agreement with Amazon, part of which includes that I have warranty coverage if the seller sends me something which is "materially different" that what was on the listing page.

Yes, but while the warranty governs what Amazon does (i.e., whether or not Amazon grants the buyer a refund), it may not end the seller's dispute with the buyer outside the parameters of Amazon.

I agree that it is unlikely that you'll be sued if the seller lives in a different state and the cost of the item is not great. However, if you are sued, then the burden will be on you to prove that Amazon's decision is binding outside the parameters of Amazon (i.e., that it governs more than Amazon's decision to grant you a refund). Accordingly, you will need to cite the specific language in the terms and conditions that release you of liability for failing to return the item.

 

[AmazonUser]

Yes, but while the warranty governs what Amazon does (i.e., whether or not Amazon grants the buyer a refund), it may not end the seller's dispute with the buyer outside the parameters of Amazon.

I agree that it is unlikely that you'll be sued if the seller lives in a different state and the cost of the item is not great. However, if you are sued, then the burden will be on you to prove that Amazon's decision is binding outside the parameters of Amazon (i.e., that it governs more than Amazon's decision to grant you a refund). Accordingly, you will need to cite the specific language in the terms and conditions that release you of liability for failing to return the item.

"DISPUTES

Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your visit to Amazon.com or to products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify. The Federal Arbitration Act and federal arbitration law apply to this agreement.

There is no judge or jury in arbitration, and court review of an arbitration award is limited. However, an arbitrator can award on an individual basis the same damages and relief as a court (including injunctive and declaratory relief or statutory damages), and must follow the terms of these Conditions of Use as a court would."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=508088


From Wikipedia:

"In United States law, the Federal Arbitration Act is a statute that provides for judicial facilitation of private dispute resolution through arbitration. It applies in both state courts and federal courts, as was held in Southland Corp. v. Keating. It applies where the transaction contemplated by the parties "involves" interstate commerce and is predicated on an exercise of the Commerce Clause powers granted to Congress in the U.S. Constitution.

The Federal Arbitration Act (found at 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.), enacted in 1925, provides for contractually-based compulsory and binding arbitration, resulting in an arbitration award entered by an arbitrator or arbitration panel as opposed to a judgment entered by a court of law. In an arbitration the parties give up the right to an appeal on substantive grounds to a court."

So it sounds could assert a claim only in small claims court, but I agree with Stevef who said:

Buyer purchased camera from Amazon. Amazon delegated duty to fulfill order to seller. Seller has a contract with Amazon. Buyer has a contract with Amazon.

Seller does not have a contract with Buyer. Seller has no standing to sue buyer. Seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Buyer should tell seller to pound sand.

So I would not have to to "cite the specific language in the terms and conditions that release you of liability for failing to return the item", only convince the court that my only contract is with Amazon. I purchased the item on Amazon, Amazon refunded the bad sale, Amazon never requested for me to return the item. Seller's agreement is with Amazon, seller's recourse is with Amazon.

 

[Zigner]

You will want to research the meaning of the word conversion. You have something that doesn't belong to you.

 

[BL]

You will want to research the meaning of the word conversion. You have something that doesn't belong to you.

I would respectfully disagree.

All transactions are handled through amazon , unless the seller has a return policy of their own.

It would be interesting to know what was typed back and forth duruing the intial contact the seller and after until the A-Z complaint was filed.

Some sellers have no return policy,therefor leaving it up to the terms of Amazon.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/?nodeId=901908#camera


Camera & Photo
Camera & Photo items purchased from Amazon.com and most sellers are easily returned within 30 days of receipt of shipment. These items must be in new condition with original packaging and accessories.To initiate a return of an item, whether purchased from Amazon.com or a seller, please visit the Online Returns CenterTo view a seller's return policy, click Return items in the Online Returns Center, then click the "seller profile" link to reach the seller's storefront. From there, you can read more about the seller and its return policy.

 

[Zigner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29

It's a decent explanation of the concept of conversion.


The item never belonged to Amazon - they never had any ownership rights over it.

 

[CameronNewport]

So it sounds could assert a claim only in small claims court, but I agree with Stevef ...

So I would not have to to "cite the specific language in the terms and conditions that release you of liability for failing to return the item", only convince the court that my only contract is with Amazon. I purchased the item on Amazon, Amazon refunded the bad sale, Amazon never requested for me to return the item. Seller's agreement is with Amazon, seller's recourse is with Amazon.

Using Amazon to purchase the item does not necessarily mean that you had no contract with the seller. That would only be the case if you reasonably believed that you had purchased the item directly from Amazon rather than from a third party. While I'm no expert on Amazon's policies, I have made a handful of purchases through Amazon over the years, and in each case it was clear to me in advance when the seller was a third party. But I'm not hear to argue the facts with you. If you can show that your only contract was with Amazon, then you may prevail if sued.

 

[AmazonUser]

By these words, you have finally proven that you have abused the Amazon A and Z thing to rip off an innocent person; your detailed knowledge of the Amazon's claim service convinces me that you are not a good person.
The Amazon A and Z thing is not a warranty, but a service when a buyer has an unresolvable problem with a buyer at Amazon and must be the last resort you should take after making every effort to solve an issue with the buyer. However, your descriptions say nothing about your effort to resolve the problem with the buyer. It is true that the seller should have represent the item correctly and accurately at the first place, but it does not mean that you can make use of his fault to snatch his camera for free by abusing the Amazon's nonsensical claim service.

The amount of detailed knowledge a person has of their rights and guarantees as a consumer when visiting a site such as Amazon does not equate to abuse nor to whether they are a "good person" or not. I have educated myself on the rights I have when using a credit card. That research makes me informed consumer, not a thief. I am a high volume purchaser and have had to utilize the credit card chargeback system on very rare occasions, but when I have it's been a very effective recourse and I'm glad that I am smart and informed consumer.

The Amazon A-to-Z "thing" is a guarantee that goes beyond just what most purchasing sites offer. It is a "coverage" service according to Amazon that the buyer receives automatically when purchasing on the site. You may think that it's "nonsensical" but it's one of the reasons I purchase on Amazon and not somewhere else. It gives me the security that if something goes wrong Amazon will guarantee the purchase. The seller has an agreement with Amazon to fulfill orders according to their seller agreement. If the seller violates Amazon policy, they are subject to their agreement. Sellers should abide by this and not falsify their listings.

"We want you to buy with confidence anytime you purchase products on the Amazon.com website or use Amazon Payments. That is why we guarantee purchases from Amazon Marketplace sellers when payment is made via the Amazon.com website or when you use Amazon Payments for qualified purchases on third-party websites. The condition of the item you buy and its timely delivery are guaranteed under the Amazon A-to-z Guarantee.

Buyers are covered at no cost. We're committed to creating a safe buying experience on the Amazon.com website and when using Amazon Payments on third party websites."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?ie=UTF8&nodeId=537868

This isn't an Amazon forum. There are many Amazon forums where buyers and sellers can debate the merits and sense of the Amazon A-to-Z guarantee. My only reason in posting here is to find out if there is any legal basis for the seller's threats and I couldn't care less if you think I'm a "good person" or not. Maybe you should consider that your habit of trolling sites like this to flame others who only came here asking for help doesn't make you such a "good person".

 

[Zigner]

My only reason in posting here is to find out if there is any legal basis for the seller's threats ...

It's entirely possible that your acts amount to conversion.

 

[AmazonUser]

It's entirely possible that your acts amount to conversion.

Then every buyer who ever filed a claim on Amazon and was not required to return the bad merchandise are all guilty of "conversion" according to you. I'm sure the courts would agree. Yeah right.