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

[AmazonUser]

The judge would surely rule against you unless you have a legitimate argument as to why you were not obligated to return the item.

I do have a legitimate argument as to why I was not obligated to return the item. The item was misrepresented and listed in a fraudulent way, and no return label was provided to return the item therefore I am not obligated to have to spend additional money on shipping to support the seller's fraudulent activity.

Let's assume that the seller and buyer do have a contractual agreement. Part of that agreement is that the seller and buyer both abide by the rules and policies set down by Amazon where we're conducting business. The seller violated Amazons policies by misrepresenting the item. He listed it fraudulently whether he intended to or not, and is therefore in breach of contract. And the fact that he listed it fraudulently has already been confirmed by not just one, but two rulings from Amazon. His fraudulent misrepresentation of the item put him in breach of contract even before I saw the listing. He was trying to get around the system and he got caught.

And as an aside, if such a case ever did make it into court that challenged the veracity of Amazons A-to-Z guarantee, such a case would be big, big news. Can you imagine the effect on Amazon's sales if suddenly all of their millions of customers found out that the Amazon guarantee is worthless? It would be a huge blow to Amazon's credibility, it would make national news and both parties to the case would become famous. I would think that Amazon would have a very large stake in preventing that from happening.

 

[Proserpina]

And as an aside, if such a case ever did make it into court that challenged the veracity of Amazons A-to-Z guarantee, such a case would be big, big news. Can you imagine the effect on Amazon's sales if suddenly all of their millions of customers found out that the Amazon guarantee is worthless? It would make national news and both parties to the case would become famous. I would think that Amazon would have a stake in preventing that from happening.

Do you think this is the first time Amazon has come across this?

This is about as newsworthy as the little toe on my left foot. And not nearly as interesting.

 

[justalayman]

AmazonUser;3048381]I do have a legitimate argument as to why I was not obligated to return the item. The item was misrepresented and listed in a fraudulent way, and no return label was provided to return the item.

you claim it was underrepresented. It requires a court to actually determine if it was or not. The lack of a return label is meaningless. If it wasn't included, you have an obligation to contact the seller and discuss means of returning the item.

Let's assume that the seller and buyer do have a contractual agreement. Part of that agreement is that the seller and buyer both abide by the rules and policies set down by Amazon where we're conducting business. The seller violated Amazons policies by listing by misrepresenting the item. He listed it fraudulently whether he intended to or not, and is therefore in breach of contract.

so you want to just make stuff up?

And as an aside, if such a case ever did make it into court that challenged the veracity of Amazons A-to-Z guarantee, such a case would be big, big news. Can you imagine the effect on Amazon's sales if suddenly all of their millions of customers found out that the Amazon guarantee is worthless? It would make national news and both parties to the case would become famous. I would think that Amazon would have a stake in preventing that from happening.

the return of the item has nothing to do with the guarantee. It simply states the buyer would get a refund and the sellers account would be debited. It does not say the buyer has no obligation to return the iterm.

 

[AmazonUser]

Do you think this is the first time Amazon has come across this?

Have you heard of a court case that has nullified Amazon's guarantee? No, because there hasn't been one. If you have, please cite the case.

There was a case in NY that was just in the news where the NY courts ruled that NY has no jurisdiction in an eBay dispute with a seller in another state. THAT was big news. If Amazon's guarantee was actually nullified by a court ruling, that would be much bigger news because it would effect every Amazon buyer who ever purchased from a Marketplace seller.

 

[AmazonUser]

the return of the item has nothing to do with the guarantee. It simply states the buyer would get a refund and the sellers account would be debited. It does not say the buyer has no obligation to return the iterm.

WRONG. Amazon has explicitly stated that if a seller listed an item in a different condition than the one advertised on the detail page, and the "item was materially different than described, the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not".


Just read this thread from a seller who tried to sell something as "New" after he removed the UPC codes from the box:

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/deal-discussion/540685/

Last post:

"Per our Policies for listing Amazon Marketplace items, sellers must
accurately describe the product's condition. It is not sufficient
to list differences from the stated condition in the comments. In
this case, this item was listed as "New." As we state in our
condition guidelines, this condition means:

"New: Just like it sounds. A brand-new, unused, unopened product in
its original packaging and with all original packaging materials
included. The original manufacturer's warranty, if any, should still
apply, with details of the warranty included in the conditions
comments."

You cannot remove the UPC label from the packaging of any item and
list it as "New" or "Like New" because the original packaging must
be intact.

Because you listed an item in a different condition than the one
advertised on the detail page, the item was materially different
than described, and the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-
z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not."

Key phrases:

1. You cannot list an item as "New", or even "Like New" if the original packaging is not intact. Amazon is very clear about this.

2. Doing so means "the item was materially different than described, and the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-
z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not".

 

[justalayman]

AmazonUser;3048390]WRONG. Amazon has explicitly stated that if a seller listed an item in a different condition than the one advertised on the detail page, and the "item was materially different than described, the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not".

that means you get a refund whether the merchandise is returned or not. It says nothing concerning whether you have to return the item if the seller wants it back.

Because you listed an item in a different condition than the one
advertised on the detail page, the item was materially different
than described, and the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-
z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not."

that means you get your money back, from Amazon mind you, whether the merchandise is returned or not. It does not say the merchandise does not have to be returned. Just that you get your refund whether it is returned or not. You keep quoting the Amazon crap like it is law or a contract. It isn't law. In fact, unless you can show me where there is a contract between Amazon and the SELLER that states they forfeit the merchandise in such a dispute, the do not forfeit the merchandise.

 

[justalayman]

AmazonUser;3048388]Have you heard of a court case that has nullified Amazon's guarantee? No, because there hasn't been one. If you have, please cite the case.

It's because you are claiming their policy allows something it doesn't so there is no need to contest it.

There was a case in NY that was just in the news where the NY courts ruled that NY has no jurisdiction in an eBay dispute with a seller in another state. THAT was big news..

Really? Post it. That is contrary to the law in place for a couple hundred years.

 

[Cali408nia]

AmazonUser, what kind of negotiating did you do with the seller on the return of the item? You said he wanted you to ship it on your dime, and you said no (I would agree with you there). Did you ask him to pay for the shipping? What did he say? Did you warn him that if he wasn't going to pay for return shipping that you would discard the item? Do you have these messages saved so that if a lawsuit comes about, you have any sort of proof you made an effort to return his item to him?

I agree with many of the opinions on this situation. I don't think you have to pay anything out of pocket for a misrepresentation. I do, however, think the seller has every right to get his property back. I would not have discarded it so quickly. And actually, I doubt you discarded something that had some value to it. A lot of people would sell it for profit and that would make them a slime bag, which I am not going to accuse you of, but it's definitely wrong to do if you did it. I would have tried to have a little patience and keep the item around in case a resolution could be made. In any event, keep us updated on what happens, because this is interesting.

 

[AmazonUser]

Really? Post it. That is contrary to the law in place for a couple hundred years.

http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ebay-buyer-cant-sue-out-of-state-seller-in-home-state-says-court/

What's more, I am just a BUYER: a consumer, so I am not a business entity conducting business in ANY state. The seller would surely have to come half way across the country in order to sue ME.

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Amazon had denied my claim, would I be willing to travel half way across the country to risk filing a lawsuit that I had little chance of winning? Certainly not. So because the chances of the seller actually following through on his threat are so slim, the rest of these arguments are all just academic.

 

[CameronNewport]

I do have a legitimate argument as to why I was not obligated to return the item. The item was misrepresented and listed in a fraudulent way, and no return label was provided to return the item therefore I am not obligated to have to spend additional money on shipping to support the seller's fraudulent activity.

Let's assume that the seller and buyer do have a contractual agreement. Part of that agreement is that the seller and buyer both abide by the rules and policies set down by Amazon where we're conducting business. The seller violated Amazons policies by misrepresenting the item. He listed it fraudulently whether he intended to or not, and is therefore in breach of contract.

That is not a legitimate reason to refuse to return the item. I don't think you'll find any statute or case law stating that if a seller misrepresents an item, then the buyer is entitled to both a refund and the misrepresented item. A breach of contract entitles you to the benefit of the bargain. In other words, you are entitled to be put in the position that you would have been in had the breach not occurred. However, keeping the money and the item puts you in a better position than you would have been in had the breach not occurred. Sure, you can argue that you should not be required to pay for shipping, but this was clearly never about shipping.

 

[CameronNewport]

There was a case in NY that was just in the news where the NY courts ruled that NY has no jurisdiction in an eBay dispute with a seller in another state. THAT was big news. If Amazon's guarantee was actually nullified by a court ruling, that would be much bigger news because it would effect every Amazon buyer who ever purchased from a Marketplace seller.

That doesn't seem like big news in the slightest. In fact, it would be bigger news (from a legal perspective) if the court ruled the other way around. I can point to several similar outcomes, but it is fairly rare where you'll find that a buyer's home state has jurisdiction over an out-of-state seller merely because of one random sale. In any event, neither outcome is very newsworthy to the average person, so it's certainly not front page stuff.

As an aside, it is much more common for a seller's home state to have jurisdiction over a buyer just based on one random sale. The difference is that the buyer generally seeks out the seller. For more info, look up "minimum contacts" and long arm statutes.

 

[utmostpriority]

Once again, you have proven that you expected how it would end up at the first place

http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ebay-buyer-cant-sue-out-of-state-seller-in-home-state-says-court/

What's more, I am just a BUYER: a consumer, so I am not a business entity conducting business in ANY state. The seller would surely have to come half way across the country in order to sue ME.

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Amazon had denied my claim, would I be willing to travel half way across the country to risk filing a lawsuit that I had little chance of winning? Certainly not. So because the chances of the seller actually following through on his threat are so slim, the rest of these arguments are all just academic.

I have read all your replies so far and couldn't find any single clue or glimpse that you have ever tried to return the camera to the seller, but they all point to the direction that you expected you could keep the camera and get the money back.
The statement at Amazon that they do not obligate the buyer to return the item to the seller never mean that you can keep it legally; it is just a guideline from Amazon, not a law.

BTW, you have not yet answered to my question; how much worth the camera was?

 

[justalayman]

http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/ebay-buyer-cant-sue-out-of-state-seller-in-home-state-says-court/

What's more, I am just a BUYER: a consumer, so I am not a business entity conducting business in ANY state. The seller would surely have to come half way across the country in order to sue ME.

Now if the shoe was on the other foot, and Amazon had denied my claim, would I be willing to travel half way across the country to risk filing a lawsuit that I had little chance of winning? Certainly not. So because the chances of the seller actually following through on his threat are so slim, the rest of these arguments are all just academic.

I don't know what I was thinking when I posted that. A buyer typically has to sue in the seller's home state as the buyers state generally does not have jurisdiction over either the person or the subject matter since the sale will be considered to take place in the sellers state.

as to the sellers state of choice: obviously he could sue you in your state. He can sue you in his state since the transaction took place in his state but his state will not have jurisdiction over you so it is impractical to attempt to do that.

Now, if they could move it to a federal court, the rules would be different.

 

[utmostpriority]

Why don't you just send some money to the seller?

IL

I purchased a Camera item from an Amazon.com third party Marketplace seller. The item was the wrong model, plus the condition was listed as "Like New" but it was not in "Like New" condition because there was no box or manual. By Amazon standards "Like New" means it must come in the original retail packaging. I filed an Amazon A-to-Z Warranty Claim and Amazon found in my favor and sent me a full refund within 7 days.

The seller appealed the decision and lost, and now he sent me a certified letter threatening legal action against me, including criminal charges for theft. I think that these threats are baseless, however I don't have any evidence as to whether the Amazon claim arbitration is legally binding or not. I think his beef is with Amazon, not me, but I cannot find anything in the Amazon seller agreement about whether Amazon Warranty decisions are legally binding and leave me off the hook.

What is the proper way to respond to this letter? I have already gotten rid of the item and so I will not be returning it, and under Amazon's claim guidelines I am not obliged to return it since the seller misrepresented it.

Here are Amazon's policies which relate to this:

"Per our Policies for listing Amazon Marketplace items, sellers must accurately describe the product's condition. It is not sufficient to list differences from the stated condition in the comments (he did). This item was listed as Used - Like New. As we state in our condition guidelines, this condition means:

"Like New: An apparently untouched camera or photography item in perfect condition. The original wrapping may be missing, but the original packaging is intact. There are absolutely no signs of wear. Suitable for presenting as a gift.

"Because you listed an item in a different condition than the one advertised on the detail page, the item was materially different than described, and the buyer is automatically eligible for the A-to-z Guarantee, whether they return the item or not. We always hope that sellers and buyers are able to work out a transaction before resorting to the Guarantee, but once a Guarantee claim is filed, we must take appropriate action from our end. We have reimbursed the buyer and your seller account will be debited. If you'd like to view our Policies, Glossary and FAQs, please visit:"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=1161242

So far, you have argued for why it is legitimate to take someone's belonging without paying at Amazon and demonstrated how to do it.
Why don't you just send a money order to the seller to escape all of the problems?
You got your money back, but then why are you keep insisting why you have a right to snatch someone's expensive item?

 

[BL]

So far, you have argued for why it is legitimate to take someone's belonging without paying at Amazon and demonstrated how to do it.

What kind of babble is that ?

A buyer must pay first in order for the item to be shipped.

Why don't you just send a money order to the seller to escape all of the problems?

I do not see a problem here . All I see is a threatening letter outside of Amazon's A-Z guarantee.

You got your money back, but then why are you keep insisting why you have a right to snatch someone's expensive item?

Now you contradicted yourself. He must have sent payment to be able to be reimbursed through Amazon and the seller's account. The Item was not snatched .

Your postings are nonsense.