Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Can I take legal action based on losses of currency transer fees?
123 views
Skip to first unread message
drkirkby
Nov 17, 2012, 9:35:02 PM11/17/12
to
I bought a reconditioned item of electronic test equipment off of eBay from a very large international company (multi-billion dollar). This was a personal purchase, for personal use, and was not going to be used by any company.
They have offices in the UK, US, Germany etc. The item was expensive. The price agreed was $17,736. The seller wanted me to use Paypal, even though I did not want to. The amount I had to pay Paypal was £11,463.74, so I got an exchange rate of 1.547 USD = 1 GBP. The Paypal transaction was funded from my bank account - not a credit or debit card.
The goods arrives some 4 weeks later, and were faulty. I was told they needed to be repaired, and but there were also other firmware bugs on this instrument, which I did not think were going to get fixed.
Anyway, I said to the seller the goods were not fit for purpose, and wanted a refund, to which they have agreed.
The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been made.
By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
Virtually all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK offices of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to the UK. Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund.
A few days ago I got this from them.
=================================================
Dear David,
Please be advised that our Accounts payable have confirmed that the refund payment can be made directly in GBP to your bank account. XXXXXX conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 (1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP).
This would mean the you will receive a transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and so would not incur any currency conversion bank charges ( $17,736.05 $ in GBP 11,010.84.).
====================================================
The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds?
I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway, whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
I've had zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company said they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that rate of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know.
For what it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has been negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the interest rate calculation.
I feel since the goods were faulty, I should not be have to incur losses.
Do I have any hope?
Dave
They have offices in the UK, US, Germany etc. The item was expensive. The price agreed was $17,736. The seller wanted me to use Paypal, even though I did not want to. The amount I had to pay Paypal was £11,463.74, so I got an exchange rate of 1.547 USD = 1 GBP. The Paypal transaction was funded from my bank account - not a credit or debit card.
The goods arrives some 4 weeks later, and were faulty. I was told they needed to be repaired, and but there were also other firmware bugs on this instrument, which I did not think were going to get fixed.
Anyway, I said to the seller the goods were not fit for purpose, and wanted a refund, to which they have agreed.
The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been made.
By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
Virtually all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK offices of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to the UK. Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund.
A few days ago I got this from them.
=================================================
Dear David,
Please be advised that our Accounts payable have confirmed that the refund payment can be made directly in GBP to your bank account. XXXXXX conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 (1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP).
This would mean the you will receive a transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and so would not incur any currency conversion bank charges ( $17,736.05 $ in GBP 11,010.84.).
====================================================
The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds?
I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway, whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
I've had zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company said they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that rate of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know.
For what it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has been negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the interest rate calculation.
I feel since the goods were faulty, I should not be have to incur losses.
Do I have any hope?
Dave
Robin
Nov 18, 2012, 4:55:02 AM11/18/12
to
<snip>
I hope someone who knows will address the question of *where* you can
sue as I have a vague recollection that with eBay the default may be the
State where the seller is located.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
> I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the
> seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees
> would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I
> expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway,
> whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
<snip>
> seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees
> would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I
> expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway,
> whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
I hope someone who knows will address the question of *where* you can
sue as I have a vague recollection that with eBay the default may be the
State where the seller is located.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 5:25:01 AM11/18/12
to
In message <4771ac67-33a4-4329...@googlegroups.com>, at
02:35:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
of the original transaction.
>Virtually all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK offices of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to the UK.
>Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund.
>
>A few days ago I got this from them.
>
>=================================================
>Dear David,
>
>Please be advised that our Accounts payable have confirmed that the refund payment can be made directly in GBP to your bank account. XXXXXX
>conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 (1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP).
>
>This would mean the you will receive a transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and so would not incur any currency conversion bank charges ( $17,736.05 $
>in GBP 11,010.84.).
>====================================================
>
>The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
>Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds?
I've had the same issue, buying a laptop battery from a US supplier who
decided after he'd accepted the order, and been paid, that he wouldn't
ship to the UK. I got the refund back in dollars, but in the mean time
the exchange rate had changed slightly and I was a pound or two out of
pocket.
I don't think you can insist on getting back the number of pounds you
paid, only the number of dollars. That's part of the risk of
cross-border transactions.
--
Roland Perry
02:35:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been made.
>
>By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal
>transaction can't be cancelled.
They can always send you money by Paypal ("transfer finds"), independent
>
>By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal
>transaction can't be cancelled.
of the original transaction.
>Virtually all communicaation about this matter has been with the UK offices of the company. All emails come from the UK and are sent to the UK.
>Staff from the UK office have phoned me about the refund.
>
>A few days ago I got this from them.
>
>=================================================
>Dear David,
>
>Please be advised that our Accounts payable have confirmed that the refund payment can be made directly in GBP to your bank account. XXXXXX
>conversion rate for Nov’12 is 1.61078 (1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP).
>
>This would mean the you will receive a transfer of 11,010.84 GBP, and so would not incur any currency conversion bank charges ( $17,736.05 $
>in GBP 11,010.84.).
>====================================================
>
>The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
>Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds?
decided after he'd accepted the order, and been paid, that he wouldn't
ship to the UK. I got the refund back in dollars, but in the mean time
the exchange rate had changed slightly and I was a pound or two out of
pocket.
I don't think you can insist on getting back the number of pounds you
paid, only the number of dollars. That's part of the risk of
cross-border transactions.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 6:35:02 AM11/18/12
to
convert from and to another currency thats not really thier problem its
yours
This is a risk you take buying internationally using differing
currencies without clarification as to exchange rate fluctuations.
They have a solid defence in that they have repaid you in full xxxx
dollars
Message has been deleted
GB
Nov 18, 2012, 7:20:03 AM11/18/12
to
I looked up the rates on http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/
I couldn't find any dates in the last 90 days where the paypal rate of
$1.547 was close to the spot rate. So, it looks like the trouble stems
from the margin that paypal took on the transaction, rather than from a
problem with the supplier. Do you have the exact date of the purchase,
so it's easier to check this?
For future reference, paypal will allow you to maintain funds in US$, so
you could have got a transfer to paypal at a more favourable rate and
then passed it on.
My inclination would be to complain to paypal. It's all very well for
them to take say 3% on a £100 transaction, but not on an £11,000 one.
Likewise, if you are not happy with the 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP, I
suggest that you open a USD account in the UK and get the USD
transferred in full, then convert it to GBP.
I couldn't find any dates in the last 90 days where the paypal rate of
$1.547 was close to the spot rate. So, it looks like the trouble stems
from the margin that paypal took on the transaction, rather than from a
problem with the supplier. Do you have the exact date of the purchase,
so it's easier to check this?
For future reference, paypal will allow you to maintain funds in US$, so
you could have got a transfer to paypal at a more favourable rate and
then passed it on.
My inclination would be to complain to paypal. It's all very well for
them to take say 3% on a £100 transaction, but not on an £11,000 one.
Likewise, if you are not happy with the 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP, I
suggest that you open a USD account in the UK and get the USD
transferred in full, then convert it to GBP.
Doctor Dave
Nov 18, 2012, 7:50:01 AM11/18/12
to
I however would pursue this further. This loss is an easily forseeable result of their breach of contract and so I would be pursuing them down those lines.
The fact that they insisted you pay through PayPal and in dollars is neither here nor there as you knew that when you entered into the contract and so agreed to it. I would argue on the basis of the point in the paragraph above (although jurisdiction and so on unboubtedly complicate things).
It is the sort of thing that is worth a punt for a litigant in person. Might they argue that it was a B2B transaction? It is highly unusual for individuals to purchase this sort of test equipment themselves.
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 6:05:02 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:25:08 AM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4771ac67-33a4-4329...@googlegroups.com>, at
>
> 02:35:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
> >The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been made.
>
> >
>
> >By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal
>
> >transaction can't be cancelled.
>
>
>
> They can always send you money by Paypal ("transfer finds"), independent
That's an interesting point. I don't know if the seller commision rate would have been lower. It only seems reasonable I insist on Paypal, when they did. But I'd asked them to refund in GBP, thinking I would get the lot back, that is not going to happen.
> In message <4771ac67-33a4-4329...@googlegroups.com>, at
>
> 02:35:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>
> >The good were returned by UPS, and arrived 57 days days after the Paypal transaction had been made.
>
> >
>
> >By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60 day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the Paypal
>
> >transaction can't be cancelled.
>
>
>
> They can always send you money by Paypal ("transfer finds"), independent
To be fair, some of their staff have been trying really hard to get me back all my money. One said "I'm going to do my best to make sure you don't lose a penny", and another I knew is going to put in their point, even though they have nothing to do with the financial side.
> >The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
> >
>
> >Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what grounds?
>
>
>
> I've had the same issue, buying a laptop battery from a US supplier who
>
> decided after he'd accepted the order, and been paid, that he wouldn't
>
> ship to the UK. I got the refund back in dollars, but in the mean time
>
> the exchange rate had changed slightly and I was a pound or two out of
>
> pocket.
But your loss was a pound or two - mine is many hundreds.
> I don't think you can insist on getting back the number of pounds you
>
> paid, only the number of dollars. That's part of the risk of
>
> cross-border transactions.
Also, they had the goods back 3 woring days before the limit on cancelling the paypal transaction became incompoosible. Had they acted more quickly, the Paypal transaction could have been cancelled, and I would not have lost anything.
Dave
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 6:20:02 AM11/18/12
to
When the company has offices all around thw world, it is less clear where they are located. They are registered in the UK as a company. Their communication showns their company nunber, which agrees with the information on Companies House. So the fact a UK registered company is sending me money, does that not mean I have a reasonable chance of suing the UK company?
They are no doubt registered in the US too. I don't know where the head quarters are, if there is such a legal term. But the company started up in the USA in the 1930's, so it might be in the USA.
Dave
EJones
Nov 18, 2012, 6:35:02 AM11/18/12
to
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B4758jqr...@perry.co.uk...
before you bought the item.To get certainty you should have insisted on
paying in sterling - the US company would have told you no - you would not
have had the item- but you also would not have been out of pocket.
Next time you want to make a large purchase like this have a word with the
International department of your bank who will advise about bills of
exchange and bills of lading.
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 6:50:02 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:35:08 AM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> They have refunded you exactly what you paid in dollars if you chose to
>
> convert from and to another currency thats not really thier problem its
>
> yours
>
>
>
> This is a risk you take buying internationally using differing
>
> currencies without clarification as to exchange rate fluctuations.
>
>
>
> They have a solid defence in that they have repaid you in full xxxx
>
> dollars
OK, I apprecaite that.
> They have refunded you exactly what you paid in dollars if you chose to
>
> convert from and to another currency thats not really thier problem its
>
> yours
>
>
>
> This is a risk you take buying internationally using differing
>
> currencies without clarification as to exchange rate fluctuations.
>
>
>
> They have a solid defence in that they have repaid you in full xxxx
>
> dollars
But do I have a case for seeking compensation to cover the incedental losses as a result of faulty goods being sent?
Also, had they acted more quickly, and processed this within 3 working days of receiving the item back to their UK offices, the Paypal transaction could have been reversed, and I would have incurred no loss.
Dave
Roland Perry
Nov 18, 2012, 9:00:11 AM11/18/12
to
In message <b831023b-a20f-4d89...@googlegroups.com>, at
11:05:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>I'm assuming you probably used Paypal for this. If the transaction is
>cancelled within 60 days, then neither of you would lose.
I'm sure the amount I got back on my credit card was less than had been
taken originally.
--
Roland Perry
11:05:02 on Sun, 18 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>I'm assuming you probably used Paypal for this. If the transaction is
>cancelled within 60 days, then neither of you would lose.
taken originally.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 9:20:02 AM11/18/12
to
drkirkby wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:55:08 AM UTC, Robin wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court,
> > > the
> >
> > > seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal
> > > fees
> >
> > > would be more than �452.90, though given the size of the company,
> > > I
> >
> > > expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid
> > > anyway,
> >
> > > whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
> >
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope someone who knows will address the question of where you can
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 9:55:08 AM UTC, Robin wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court,
> > > the
> >
> > > seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal
> > > fees
> >
> > > would be more than �452.90, though given the size of the company,
> > > I
> >
> > > expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid
> > > anyway,
> >
> > > whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
> >
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > sue as I have a vague recollection that with eBay the default may
> > be the
> >
> > State where the seller is located.
>
>
> That's easy in the case of a small company.
>
> When the company has offices all around thw world, it is less clear
> where they are located. They are registered in the UK as a company.
> Their communication showns their company nunber, which agrees with
> the information on Companies House. So the fact a UK registered
> company is sending me money, does that not mean I have a reasonable
> chance of suing the UK company?
>
> They are no doubt registered in the US too. I don't know where the
> head quarters are, if there is such a legal term. But the company
> started up in the USA in the 1930's, so it might be in the USA.
>
> Dave
Most international companies have subsidiaries in the larger economies,
> > sue as I have a vague recollection that with eBay the default may
> > be the
> >
> > State where the seller is located.
>
>
> That's easy in the case of a small company.
>
> When the company has offices all around thw world, it is less clear
> where they are located. They are registered in the UK as a company.
> Their communication showns their company nunber, which agrees with
> the information on Companies House. So the fact a UK registered
> company is sending me money, does that not mean I have a reasonable
> chance of suing the UK company?
>
> They are no doubt registered in the US too. I don't know where the
> head quarters are, if there is such a legal term. But the company
> started up in the USA in the 1930's, so it might be in the USA.
>
> Dave
you decided to deal with the US branch so will be subject to US law
i assume you read the contract before purchasing the product this
should indicate jurisdiction.
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 9:25:02 AM11/18/12
to
The UK office did not sell you the goods the US office did they are two
separate trading entities operating under different legal systems.
You bought a second hand piece of every expensive kit the type of kit
you bought is generally only bought by business not privately so one
must assume you have some level of expertise in the field enough to
understand the type of product your buying and its limitations
What incidental losses do you attribute to this if its not being used
for a commercial purpose
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 9:30:03 AM11/18/12
to
reading of the post were happy to correct any faults (something yuo can
expect on second hand kit) the op never gave them the opportunity to
remedy the situation instead requesting a refund which they complied
with .
The op recinded the contract
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 8:55:02 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:50:07 PM UTC, Doctor Dave wrote:
> There appears to be a reasonable body of opinion here stating the view that you have been put back in the position that you were prior to the contract and so that is the end of the matter.
Yes.
> There appears to be a reasonable body of opinion here stating the view that you have been put back in the position that you were prior to the contract and so that is the end of the matter.
> I however would pursue this further. This loss is an easily forseeable result of their breach of contract and so I would be pursuing them down those lines.
> The fact that they insisted you pay through PayPal and in dollars is neither here nor there as you knew that when you entered into the contract and so agreed to it. I would argue on the basis of the point in the paragraph above (although jurisdiction and so on unboubtedly complicate things).
>
>
>
> It is the sort of thing that is worth a punt for a litigant in person.
> Might they argue that it was a B2B transaction? It is highly unusual for individuals to purchase this sort of test equipment themselves.
It was partly is was my interest in amateur radio, but partly I am thinking of setting up a business at a later date, where I would make use of this item professionally. (I've recently been made unemployed).
After the transaction was agreed on eBay, they sent me a list of questions on eBay about what use it was going to be put - in particular about it uses in weapons etc. This is my answer to one qustion.
"1) It's initially for private use (amateur radio), but I do intend setting up a company in the near future to sell antennas and to do RF consultancy. At the minute, I do not have a company set up."
So it is clear they knew they were dealing with an individual, not a company. The address this was shipped to is a residential address, not a business address.
I suspect some or all of the staff in the UK offices might automatically assume it is for business use, since as you say it is an unusual purchase for an individual. But at the end of the day, it's my money, and if I chose to spend it on a vector network analyzer, rather than spend it the pub, that is my choice.
Would it be worth me restating to the company this was bought as an individual? Might they realize I have some rights I might not otherwise have?
Dave
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 9:10:09 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:20:08 PM UTC, GB wrote:
> I looked up the rates on http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/
>
> I couldn't find any dates in the last 90 days where the paypal rate of
>
> $1.547 was close to the spot rate. So, it looks like the trouble stems
>
> from the margin that paypal took on the transaction, rather than from a
>
> problem with the supplier. Do you have the exact date of the purchase,
>
> so it's easier to check this?
4th September 2012 was the purcase data.
> I looked up the rates on http://www.oanda.com/currency/historical-rates/
>
> I couldn't find any dates in the last 90 days where the paypal rate of
>
> $1.547 was close to the spot rate. So, it looks like the trouble stems
>
> from the margin that paypal took on the transaction, rather than from a
>
> problem with the supplier. Do you have the exact date of the purchase,
>
> so it's easier to check this?
The company are stating it is their rate on the 12th of November for the refund.
> My inclination would be to complain to paypal. It's all very well for
> them to take say 3% on a £100 transaction, but not on an £11,000 one.
I could not even try any more to get them to cancel the transaction.
I'm surprised the seller could not get Paypal to cancel the transaction, despite it being over 60 days. When I rang Paypal, they said that the seller, as a large user of Paypal, would have their own account manager, and that account manager maybe able to cancel the transaction.
> Likewise, if you are not happy with the 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP, I
> suggest that you open a USD account in the UK and get the USD
I think my only hope now is seeking compensation for the loss, due to the fact the goods were not fit for purpose. From what everyone has said, I don't see any other realistic choice I have.
Dave
Percy Picacity
Nov 18, 2012, 10:35:01 AM11/18/12
to
difference between the buying and selling currency transaction price
that most banks operate, or due to the particularly poor exchange rate
that Paypal offer? I would have thought only the last one was in any
sense the responsibility of the sellers, as they insisted on using
Paypal. Unless you can show that your contract was with the UK branch
and you can thus show that the losses were a consequence of how they
chose to fulfil their business to consumer contract with you. This
sounds unconvincing to me, but IANAL.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 12:15:02 PM11/18/12
to
drkirkby wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:50:07 PM UTC, Doctor Dave wrote:
>
> > There appears to be a reasonable body of opinion here stating the
> > view that you have been put back in the position that you were
> > prior to the contract and so that is the end of the matter.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I however would pursue this further. This loss is an easily
> > forseeable result of their breach of contract and so I would be
> > pursuing them down those lines.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > The fact that they insisted you pay through PayPal and in dollars
> > is neither here nor there as you knew that when you entered into
> > the contract and so agreed to it. I would argue on the basis of
> > the point in the paragraph above (although jurisdiction and so on
> > unboubtedly complicate things).
> >
> >
> >
> > It is the sort of thing that is worth a punt for a litigant in
> > person.
>
> That is what I was wondering - perhaps the small claims track of the
> courts here in the UK. I would appreciate advice on the best way to
> go about this.
First of all you need to find out which countries laws the contract is
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:50:07 PM UTC, Doctor Dave wrote:
>
> > There appears to be a reasonable body of opinion here stating the
> > view that you have been put back in the position that you were
> > prior to the contract and so that is the end of the matter.
>
> Yes.
>
> > I however would pursue this further. This loss is an easily
> > forseeable result of their breach of contract and so I would be
> > pursuing them down those lines.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > The fact that they insisted you pay through PayPal and in dollars
> > is neither here nor there as you knew that when you entered into
> > the contract and so agreed to it. I would argue on the basis of
> > the point in the paragraph above (although jurisdiction and so on
> > unboubtedly complicate things).
> >
> >
> >
> > It is the sort of thing that is worth a punt for a litigant in
> > person.
>
> That is what I was wondering - perhaps the small claims track of the
> courts here in the UK. I would appreciate advice on the best way to
> go about this.
drawn upon
>
> > Might they argue that it was a B2B transaction? It is highly
> > unusual for individuals to purchase this sort of test equipment
> > themselves.
>
> They could try arguing it, but I think they would lose the argument
> of a business to business transaction.
>
> It was partly is was my interest in amateur radio, but partly I am
> thinking of setting up a business at a later date, where I would make
> use of this item professionally. (I've recently been made unemployed).
So it was potentially a business purchase which you have confirmed
> > Might they argue that it was a B2B transaction? It is highly
> > unusual for individuals to purchase this sort of test equipment
> > themselves.
>
> They could try arguing it, but I think they would lose the argument
> of a business to business transaction.
>
> It was partly is was my interest in amateur radio, but partly I am
> thinking of setting up a business at a later date, where I would make
> use of this item professionally. (I've recently been made unemployed).
>
> After the transaction was agreed on eBay, they sent me a list of
> questions on eBay about what use it was going to be put - in
> particular about it uses in weapons etc. This is my answer to one
> qustion.
>
>
> "1) It's initially for private use (amateur radio), but I do intend
> setting up a company in the near future to sell antennas and to do RF
> consultancy. At the minute, I do not have a company set up."
Again you have confirmed that its your intention to set up a business
> After the transaction was agreed on eBay, they sent me a list of
> questions on eBay about what use it was going to be put - in
> particular about it uses in weapons etc. This is my answer to one
> qustion.
>
>
> "1) It's initially for private use (amateur radio), but I do intend
> setting up a company in the near future to sell antennas and to do RF
> consultancy. At the minute, I do not have a company set up."
>
> So it is clear they knew they were dealing with an individual, not a
> company. The address this was shipped to is a residential address,
> not a business address.
You do not have to be a company to be in business an individual can be
> So it is clear they knew they were dealing with an individual, not a
> company. The address this was shipped to is a residential address,
> not a business address.
in business (self employed or partnership)
Doesn't matter where its shipped a residential address can still be
used for business activities
>
> I suspect some or all of the staff in the UK offices might
> automatically assume it is for business use, since as you say it is
> an unusual purchase for an individual. But at the end of the day,
> it's my money, and if I chose to spend it on a vector network
> analyzer, rather than spend it the pub, that is my choice.
business at some point.
Try looking at it from the perspective of an outsider reviewing the
evidence
the kit is specialist not the sought of toy an ordinary member of the
public would buy for hobby electronics
It looks like a business transaction its going to take some convincing
to get anyone to believe otherwise
>
> Would it be worth me restating to the company this was bought as an
> individual? Might they realize I have some rights I might not
> otherwise have?
>
type of equipment you may struggle , you also need to consider that you
bought the goods from the USA so any action you take should be under US
consumer law as its highly likely there terms of trade are governed
by US law
> Dave
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 12:20:09 PM11/18/12
to
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 10:45:09 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:25:07 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
> What losses, you received a full settlement dollar for dollar.
Currency transfer fees are the obvious ones.
> What losses, you received a full settlement dollar for dollar.
> The UK office did not sell you the goods the US office did they are two
> separate trading entities operating under different legal systems.
It's interesting that when I spoke to one of the UK guys about this, and said the company wanted Paypal, he said I could have phoned the UK office and paid on a credit card. There was no need to use Paypal.
Despite my troubles with this transaction, if I ever buy anything else from this company via eBay, I will phone the UK offie and ask to pay via credit card. It seems I could have done that, had I known it, but it might have taken the dispatch from the factory in Malasia a bit longer.
> You bought a second hand piece of every expensive kit the type of kit
> you bought is generally only bought by business not privately so one
> must assume you have some level of expertise in the field enough to
> understand the type of product your buying and its limitations
I knew it was a handheld vector network analyzer, I knew there would be some compromises compared to a laboratory vector network analyzer.
Had the issue only been the hardware fault, I would have just got it repaired. But the firmware bugs were bothering me. I have some emails from staff from this company, telling me there are too many bugs, and that I would find them in the next release. However, I am not intending to disclose those emails, as I consider them private, and I don't want to get invdividuals into trouble. Those individuals have been very helpful, so even if it weakens my case, I wont be disclsing them.
I had a friend of mine staying with me, doing some work in my house. He is also familiar with this sort of test equipment, and owns a company where he uses a much older laboratory network analyzer. He too felt the handheld vector network analyzer was not fit for purchase.
It was actually reconditioned to a very high standard. The box, power supply, manual, case, battery and all other accessories were brand new. Only the instrument itself was reconditioned, and that was to a very high standard.
> What incidental losses do you attribute to this if its not being used
> for a commercial purpose
The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared through customs, without me paying again.
Normally if a US seller expected me to pay 20% VAT before it reached the UK, I would have told them to go away. But in this case, I believed the company would not rip me off, as they have an excellent reptutation for test and measurement equipment.
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 11:00:05 AM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:35:07 PM UTC, Percy Picacity wrote:
> To what extent is your loss due to currency fluctuation, due to the
>
> difference between the buying and selling currency transaction price
>
> that most banks operate, or due to the particularly poor exchange rate
>
> that Paypal offer? I would have thought only the last one was in any
>
> sense the responsibility of the sellers, as they insisted on using
>
> Paypal. Unless you can show that your contract was with the UK branch
>
> and you can thus show that the losses were a consequence of how they
>
> chose to fulfil their business to consumer contract with you. This
>
> sounds unconvincing to me, but IANAL.
Most does seem Paypal charges. Looking at data from xe.com, the difference between the Paypal rate is substantially higher than the difference between xe.com and what the company are quoting me. I don't know the figures off the top of my head, but I'd suggest about 65% Paypal, and 35% the company. The dollar had not moved against the pound by any significant amount, so that is not an issue.
> To what extent is your loss due to currency fluctuation, due to the
>
> difference between the buying and selling currency transaction price
>
> that most banks operate, or due to the particularly poor exchange rate
>
> that Paypal offer? I would have thought only the last one was in any
>
> sense the responsibility of the sellers, as they insisted on using
>
> Paypal. Unless you can show that your contract was with the UK branch
>
> and you can thus show that the losses were a consequence of how they
>
> chose to fulfil their business to consumer contract with you. This
>
> sounds unconvincing to me, but IANAL.
The UK office arrange for UPS to pick this up, at no cost to me. Does the fact they had it 3 days during which time the Paypal transaction could have been cancelled give them some blame? Has they acted more quickly, I think the losses would have been zero, though someone else posted here that was not the case with him. But I'm fairly sure I have not lose on cancelled Paypal transactions.
Despite agreeing a refund, the UK office sent me a credit note in the post, but I pointed out that was not a lot of use to me, and they are going to refund the money. They said it will take up to 10 days, but I expect it will be less.
I've met some very dodgy eBay sellers, and I don't consider this company in that category. Hence when things started going wrong, I did not leave negative feedback on eBay, start a Paypal disputs, or put in Paypal claims. I think with hindsight, had I raised the issues with Paypal, I would have saved myself a lot of money.
It's funny, but on small transactions I have been more careful, as they are generally with unknown people. In this case, I did not feel the need to protect myself so much, as they have a good reputation. My oppinion of htem as a company has gone down, but I still believe they are the wrolds best manufacturer of electronic test equipment - especially of the type I purchased.
Dave
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 1:05:02 PM11/18/12
to
shipping (given the type of equipment customs might take an interest)
steve robinson
Nov 18, 2012, 1:00:06 PM11/18/12
to
drkirkby wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:25:07 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
>
> > What losses, you received a full settlement dollar for dollar.
>
> Currency transfer fees are the obvious ones.
You bought goods from a company overseas you were aware of the risk
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:25:07 PM UTC, steve robinson wrote:
>
> > What losses, you received a full settlement dollar for dollar.
>
> Currency transfer fees are the obvious ones.
that currencies fluctuate in value and charges apply when switching
between the two
>
> > The UK office did not sell you the goods the US office did they are
> > two separate trading entities operating under different legal
> > systems.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if it was the US office, though I expect it
> was. The fact it was paid in $' does not neceessaily mean that.
>
> It's interesting that when I spoke to one of the UK guys about this,
> and said the company wanted Paypal, he said I could have phoned the
> UK office and paid on a credit card. There was no need to use Paypal.
Possibly because the credit card charges may have been high
> > The UK office did not sell you the goods the US office did they are
> > two separate trading entities operating under different legal
> > systems.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if it was the US office, though I expect it
> was. The fact it was paid in $' does not neceessaily mean that.
>
> It's interesting that when I spoke to one of the UK guys about this,
> and said the company wanted Paypal, he said I could have phoned the
> UK office and paid on a credit card. There was no need to use Paypal.
yuo bought something thats not fit for your purpose thats your problem
if the equipment couldnt perform the functions they stated it could
thats a different matter
The problem you have is several fold for a start this doesnt look
like a consumer transaction it looks like a business transaction,(i
know yuo say otherwise and i am not insinuating that yuo are lying or
misleading ) You are an expert and should know what your buying , you
have a problem of juristiction , the value of the sale is outside of
the small claims remit, its quite possible the company may chooose to
defend the claim they have bigger pockets than you , the costs will
spiral.
> It was actually reconditioned to a very high standard. The box, power
> supply, manual, case, battery and all other accessories were brand
> new. Only the instrument itself was reconditioned, and that was to a
> very high standard.
>
> > What incidental losses do you attribute to this if its not being
> > used for a commercial purpose
>
> Currency transfer fees, which could have been reasonably expected by
> the company. Do they not count?
currency transfer costs you chose to buy from the USA
>
> The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
companies do this
> on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> through customs, without me paying again.
>
> Normally if a US seller expected me to pay 20% VAT before it reached
> the UK, I would have told them to go away. But in this case, I
> believed the company would not rip me off, as they have an excellent
> reptutation for test and measurement equipment.
Some electronics have vat collected at scource now because of a large
> Normally if a US seller expected me to pay 20% VAT before it reached
> the UK, I would have told them to go away. But in this case, I
> believed the company would not rip me off, as they have an excellent
> reptutation for test and measurement equipment.
scale vat scam a few years ago
Percy Picacity
Nov 18, 2012, 2:05:02 PM11/18/12
to
transaction, and if they compensated you that would be a clear loss.
If the company is to blame it is for making a buggy instrument. I
suppose it is also fair to say that a professional would probably have
a lab VNA as well, and would take the equipment he was testing back
there if the portable failed to do the job, so perhaps the bugs are not
so conclusive in the main useage case. I must say, as a potential
private buyer of such items (and many rich American amateurs buy such
things even if UK ones rarely do) I hope x aren't put off selling
bargains on eBay.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 2:30:02 PM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 7:05:07 PM UTC, Percy Picacity wrote:
> On 2012-11-18 16:00:05 +0000, drkirkby said:
> I think it is fair to say the company did not make a profit out of this
> transaction, and if they compensated you that would be a clear loss.
Agreed.
> On 2012-11-18 16:00:05 +0000, drkirkby said:
> I think it is fair to say the company did not make a profit out of this
> transaction, and if they compensated you that would be a clear loss.
> If the company is to blame it is for making a buggy instrument. I
> suppose it is also fair to say that a professional would probably have
> a lab VNA as well, and would take the equipment he was testing back
> there if the portable failed to do the job, so perhaps the bugs are not
> so conclusive in the main useage case.
> I must say, as a potential private buyer of such items (and many rich American amateurs buy such things even if UK ones rarely do)
A lot of radio hams do own professional lab equipment.
> I hope x aren't put off selling
>
> bargains on eBay.
>
I guess you are a radio ham and know who X are?
Doctor Dave
Nov 18, 2012, 5:50:02 PM11/18/12
to
Presumably the OP used this specification when deciding that the item ought to have been suitable for his needs and more importantly, the vendor did not advise that the equipment being sold was subject to a different one. It seems that the OP subsequently discovered that the delivered item did not meet the published specification. We don't actually know what the fault was of course but I am assuming it was a substantial failing.
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 6:20:02 PM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 10:50:07 PM UTC, Doctor Dave wrote:
> Presumably the OP used this specification when deciding that the item ought to have been suitable for his needs and more importantly, the vendor did not advise that the equipment being sold was subject to a different one. It seems that the OP subsequently discovered that the delivered item did not meet the published specification. We don't actually know what the fault was of course but I am assuming it was a substantial failing.
Serious errors were reported by the system
> Presumably the OP used this specification when deciding that the item ought to have been suitable for his needs and more importantly, the vendor did not advise that the equipment being sold was subject to a different one. It seems that the OP subsequently discovered that the delivered item did not meet the published specification. We don't actually know what the fault was of course but I am assuming it was a substantial failing.
* VCO1 unlocked
* ADC2 overloaded
A voltsge controlled oscillator (VCO) should not go unlocked. There is nothing I should have been able to do to cause that. An analgoue to digital converter (ADC) should never be overloaded unless one puts a signal into the VNA that is too large. But I got this error with no signal connected to the VNA.
The company selling this product, which someone else has worked out the exact make and model, believe that is a hardware fault, and the system board probably needs replacing. To quote from a support person in the control where this is manufactured.
=====================================================
Please have your unit send to Agilent UK for investigation. I suspect the system board may be causing the intermittent problem. If there's a repair needed, we will replace the board for you at free of charge.
Please use this email as approval for the repair.
====================================================
So this portable vector network analyzer almost certainly had a hardware fault, for which I was advised to send it for repair. Bear in mind, I'd had the item only about 1-2 weeks.
Before this problem, there were various other problems.
* The specifications of the unit say it can be connected to a computer. A cable to connect it to the computer is provided.
* When I wanted to enter data on a calibration kit, I was told I would need to connect it to a computer. I was advised the version of firmware in my unit was probably 5.51, and I should not update to 6.02 as it would stop working with a computer. But my unit was shipped with version 6.02, so in the state shipped, it would not connect to a computer, despite that being in the spec.
* When I downgraded the firmware to an older version, as suggested by the support staff, one of the options I'd paid around $2500 would not work. I was told this was due to the firmware being too old.
So in many ways, this did not meet the specification when shipped to me.
* It would not connect to a computer - despite that being a feature. A feature one would expect of any test equipment costing this much money.
* Error message, about ADCs overloading and VCOs going unlocked, were believed by the manufacturer to be hardware errors, which meant it needed repair.
* Lots of firmware bugs I reported, too numerous to mention.
* Given the cost, the market that this is aimed at, I felt it was unacceptable.
So when I say "fit for purpose", I do not mean it was simply unfit for what I wanted to do wtih it. It was unfit for *any* in that the errors often made any mesurements impossible. It did not meeth the spec of being able to connect to a computer.
Is that fairly clear that the problems were more than me being over-picky.
Dave
drkirkby
Nov 18, 2012, 6:25:02 PM11/18/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 6:50:19 PM UTC, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> Dave has excellent credentials for expensive toys used in his hobby (see:
>
> http://www.g8wrb.org/)
Yes, that is me.
A typical radio ham does not have a lot of the things I play with. Whereas some might like to go to an amateur radio shop and spend £10,000 on a transceiver, personally I get more enjoyment from using older ones, and spening similar money on test equipment for my hobby.
> and the disputed amount, as distinct from the
>
> transaction amount, is far less than the ceiling for the small claims track
>
> but for reasons of complexity I also doubt it would proceed in that track.
Thank you.
> > What does thier contract say , if your buying from abroad you expect
>
> > currency transfer costs you chose to buy from the USA
>
>
>
> From Dave's remarks I guess this was the reconditioned FieldFox sold by
>
> Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
Yes it was.
Dave
> Dave has excellent credentials for expensive toys used in his hobby (see:
>
> http://www.g8wrb.org/)
Yes, that is me.
A typical radio ham does not have a lot of the things I play with. Whereas some might like to go to an amateur radio shop and spend £10,000 on a transceiver, personally I get more enjoyment from using older ones, and spening similar money on test equipment for my hobby.
> and the disputed amount, as distinct from the
>
> transaction amount, is far less than the ceiling for the small claims track
>
> but for reasons of complexity I also doubt it would proceed in that track.
Thank you.
> > What does thier contract say , if your buying from abroad you expect
>
> > currency transfer costs you chose to buy from the USA
>
>
>
>
> Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
Yes it was.
Dave
steve robinson
Nov 19, 2012, 1:10:02 AM11/19/12
to
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 2:25:01 AM11/19/12
to
In message <8gaia8dfdkd44dotk...@4ax.com>, at 18:50:19 on
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
States", if that helps. Also, on the item they mention that shipping to
the USA is free, and for "International" subject to quotation.
--
Roland Perry
Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Anthony R. Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> remarked:
>From Dave's remarks I guess this was the reconditioned FieldFox sold by
>Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
The eBay account for their shop says the member location is "United
>Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
States", if that helps. Also, on the item they mention that shipping to
the USA is free, and for "International" subject to quotation.
--
Roland Perry
drkirkby
Nov 19, 2012, 5:05:02 AM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 7:25:06 AM UTC, Roland Perry wrote:
> >Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
>
>
>
> The eBay account for their shop says the member location is "United
>
> States", if that helps. Also, on the item they mention that shipping to
>
> the USA is free, and for "International" subject to quotation.
>
> --
>
> Roland Perry
If you read it, the item was located in Malasia, not the USA. The partcicular auction I won is no longer on eBay, but on one for an identical item:
> >Agilent on Ebay as http://www.ebay.com/itm/170919713486.
>
>
>
> The eBay account for their shop says the member location is "United
>
> States", if that helps. Also, on the item they mention that shipping to
>
> the USA is free, and for "International" subject to quotation.
>
> --
>
> Roland Perry
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170938302296
there are terms and conditions listed:
http://stores.ebay.com/Agilent-Remarketing-Solutions-Store/Terms-and-Conditions.html
and it says:
7e. Disputes arising in connection with these Terms will be governed by the laws of the State of California.
7g. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will not apply to these Terms.
However, I don't recall it saying that on the auction I won.
I have received a "Sales order Acknowledgement" from Agilent UK, in which there is nothing about it subject to US law. Here it is in full. Note there is no quoation number listed - that section is blank.
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Ebay_170876934127_05-SEP-2012.pdf
If it went to court, would that not be reasonable evidence of it not being subject ot US law?
Dave
Roland Perry
Nov 19, 2012, 5:35:09 AM11/19/12
to
In message <a21d2111-717d-4c0f...@googlegroups.com>, at
10:05:02 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>If you read it, the item was located in Malasia, not the USA.
That's not relevant to which country the sale took place. It's a bit of
eBay consumer protectionism to make it clear to buyers how long shipping
might take, and whether there might be customs/duty issues.
fwiw the last thing I bought on eBay (a cellphone battery) said it would
be shipped from China, but in fact came from Derbyshire with a UK
postage 'stamp'. The thing before that really did come from China, and
only took a week.
--
Roland Perry
10:05:02 on Mon, 19 Nov 2012, drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> remarked:
>If you read it, the item was located in Malasia, not the USA.
eBay consumer protectionism to make it clear to buyers how long shipping
might take, and whether there might be customs/duty issues.
fwiw the last thing I bought on eBay (a cellphone battery) said it would
be shipped from China, but in fact came from Derbyshire with a UK
postage 'stamp'. The thing before that really did come from China, and
only took a week.
--
Roland Perry
Man at B&Q
Nov 19, 2012, 6:40:02 AM11/19/12
to
On Nov 18, 6:19 pm, "steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
wrote:
MBQ
wrote:
> drkirkby wrote:
>
> > The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
>
> They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> companies do this
>
> > on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> > assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> > through customs, without me paying again.
>
> If they hadnt paid the vat yuo would have recieved a bill
And would have had a whole lot more grief in reclaiming the VAT?
>
> > The seller knew it was going to the UK, and in fact charged 20% VAT
>
> They can do that if they have a UK VAT number many international
> companies do this
>
> > on the purchase price. I was initially concerned about this, but they
> > assured me the VAT would be paid in advance, and quickly cleared
> > through customs, without me paying again.
>
> If they hadnt paid the vat yuo would have recieved a bill
MBQ
drkirkby
Nov 19, 2012, 8:10:03 AM11/19/12
to
I'm still puzzled if this is really covered by US laws. Agilent might have a hard time producing any evidence I'd agreed to a set of conditions on the eBay web site which are no longer there. I've not signed anything. The only documentation I have from Agilent is from their UK offices. That consists of
1) The order acknowledgment at
http://boxen.math.washington.edu/home/kirkby/Ebay_170876934127_05-SEP-2012.pdf
2) A credit note, in dollars, which I then told them I did not want a credit note, but a refund, which had previously been agreed.
Do ebay.com conditons have any legal standing in the UK? I expect that has been tested before.
Dave
drkirkby
Nov 19, 2012, 9:25:02 AM11/19/12
to
On Monday, November 19, 2012 11:40:08 AM UTC, Man at B&Q wrote:
The unit was made in Malasia, and will almost certainly be returned to Malasia to be reconditioned at the factor where it was made. VAT has been paid on this, but Agilent will be able to reclaim that VAT.
Does that mean I have incurred losses on the VAT component of this, which Agilent will reclaim, when it is exported back to Malasia?
I have asked Agilent to comment on this. Perhaps I can at least recover 20% of my losses, with Agilent sorting it all out, not me.
Dave
Robin
Nov 19, 2012, 10:25:01 AM11/19/12
to
> Does that mean I have incurred losses on the VAT component of this,
> which Agilent will reclaim, when it is exported back to Malasia?
>
> I have asked Agilent to comment on this. Perhaps I can at least
> recover 20% of my losses, with Agilent sorting it all out, not me.
>
I do not understand the question. The document to which you have posted
> which Agilent will reclaim, when it is exported back to Malasia?
>
> I have asked Agilent to comment on this. Perhaps I can at least
> recover 20% of my losses, with Agilent sorting it all out, not me.
>
a link shows VAT included in the total of $17,736. Your original post
referred to a refund of $17,736.05. So you have not paid any VAT
direct. Agilent have dealt with the VAT and with the refund of the VAT
as part and parcel of the sale and refund. IIRC they are perfectly
entitled to do so in USD.
PS
Why the difference of 5 cents?
PPS
I note the document is document is headed "Order Reacknowledgement" and
includes "Dear valued customer, a recent change to your confirmed sales
order with Agilent Technologies has been indicated below by your
Customer Service Representative." The implication is that there was an
earlier acknowledgement. Did you get that?
In any event, I would have expected the terms of your contract to have
been determined when you entered into the contract by bidding (or using
"buy it now") on eBay. Neither party can just impose them later.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
drkirkby
Nov 19, 2012, 11:10:02 AM11/19/12
to
On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote:
> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result of the good not being fit for purpose.
================================
Dear David,
We would like to offer you compensation for the loss you have incurred from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund of £11,010.84 we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover the difference. These refunds should be in your account within 10 days.
We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money as a result of the refund.
=================================
So they are paying my loses plus another forty odd pounds on top.
As you can apprecaite, I'm happy about this.
Thank you everyone who has given me advice.
Dave
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Nov 19, 2012, 1:10:04 PM11/19/12
to
drkirkby <drki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote:
>> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result
>> of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
> The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
>
> ===============================Dear David,
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 2:35:02 AM UTC, drkirkby wrote:
>> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct result
>> of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
> The matter has been solved. I have just got this from Agilent:
>
> We would like to offer you compensation for the loss you have incurred
> from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund of £11,010.84
> we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover the difference.
> These refunds should be in your account within 10 days.
> We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money as a result of the refund.
> ================================
> from the Paypal transactions you made. On top of the refund of £11,010.84
> we will also give you a further £500 refund to cover the difference.
> These refunds should be in your account within 10 days.
> We hope that this will mean that you have not lost any money as a result of the refund.
> ================================
> So they are paying my loses plus another forty odd pounds on top.
>
> As you can apprecaite, I'm happy about this.
>
> Thank you everyone who has given me advice.
Generous of them and generous of you to acknowledge their customer service.
>
> As you can apprecaite, I'm happy about this.
>
> Thank you everyone who has given me advice.
Hopefully it will work as they hope and persuade others that they are a
reputable business.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
AlwaysAskingQuestions
Nov 20, 2012, 3:00:05 AM11/20/12
to
> The result is that I have lost £452.90. I feel this is a direct
> result of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
> result of the good not being fit for purpose.
>
> Do I have any chance of taking action over this? If so, one what
> grounds?
>
> I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the
> seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees
> would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I
> expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway,
> whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
>
> I've had zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company
> said they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that
> rate of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion
> rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know.
>
> For what it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has
> been negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the
> payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the
> interest rate calculation.
>
> I feel since the goods were faulty, I should not be have to incur
> losses.
If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit on the
> grounds?
>
> I suspect if it was sent to the small claims track of the court, the
> seller would not bother defending this, as I suspect the legal fees
> would be more than £452.90, though given the size of the company, I
> expect they have their own laywers, so perhaps they get paid anyway,
> whether in court or drinking coffee at their desk.
>
> I've had zero control over the currency conversion fees. The company
> said they wanted me to use Paypal, so I have no control over that
> rate of 1 GBP = 1.547 USD. I have no control over their conversion
> rate. Where they get 1.61078 USD = 1.00 GBP I don't know.
>
> For what it is worth, looking at historical data at xe.com, there has
> been negligable (< 0.001%) change in the $ vs pound on the days the
> payment was made to paypal, and the date they are using for the
> interest rate calculation.
>
> I feel since the goods were faulty, I should not be have to incur
> losses.
refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
drkirkby
Nov 20, 2012, 6:50:02 AM11/20/12
to
On Tuesday, November 20, 2012 8:00:05 AM UTC, AlwaysAskingQuestions wrote:
> If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit on the
>
> refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
This was nothing to do with the exchange rate change, which at least according to xe.com was only 0.001% different between the day I paid Paypal, and the day Agilent based the exchange rate on.
> If exchange rates had gone the other way and you had made a profit on the
>
> refund, would you have offered it back to the company?
It was all down to Paypal and bank fees.
To be honest, had the exchange rate shifted dramatically, so I could have made a profit, I would probably not have said anything to Agilent.
But had Agilent raised this either before or after paying me, I would not have tried to force them to pay me back the $'s I'd paid. I would have refunded any difference without hesitation.
There is in fact a difference of $0.05 on what they were offering paying me, as someone else noticed. I've not said anything to them, as I'm sure it would cost them more to correct than the $0.05.
For reasons I can't understand, I've had several bits of paper from Agilent, with 4 different prices on them.
* The correct amount of $17,736
* $0.01 less than the correct amount at $17,735.99
* $0.01 more than the correct amount at $17,736.01
* $0.05 more than the correct amount at $17,736.05
I can't understand how Agilent can get 4 different, but very close prices.
Anyway, I can only praise them now. They have been very fair. Not only have they covered all the transaction fees, but by compensating me £500, I have actually gained a bit. But it was their choice to offer me £500.
I know one thing for sure though, if I buy anything else from Agilent from eBay, it will have to be on the condition I can pay Agilent UK in GBP. I'm not be going down the Paypal route for such large transactions in future.
Anyway, Agilent will be getting some money from me soon. I have something which sometimes fails the calibration routine in a spectrum analzyer. I think it is just one module needs calibration, so I'll get Agilent to calibrate that module, hoping it will fix the problem. If not, I'll need to get another module off of eBay, as the item is quite old, and obsolete. But Agilent will still calibrate it until 2015.
Dave
steve robinson
Nov 20, 2012, 5:05:02 PM11/20/12
to
steve robinson
Nov 20, 2012, 5:10:02 PM11/20/12
to
gadgets flashing and popping a liitle bit the mad proff of many
school boy comics :)
What was the original piece of equipments function
GB
Nov 21, 2012, 3:45:03 AM11/21/12
to
On 20/11/2012 22:10, steve robinson wrote:
> What was the original piece of equipments function
>
Boys and their toys ..... :)
> What was the original piece of equipments function
>
Good result with Agilent, though. I don't think I would have asked for
the extra refund.
drkirkby
Nov 22, 2012, 7:05:02 PM11/22/12
to
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 8:45:08 AM UTC, GB wrote:
> Good result with Agilent, though. I don't think I would have asked for
>
> the extra refund.
I had to fight for that result. But lucklly, there were a fair number of Agilent staff fighting for me too.
> Good result with Agilent, though. I don't think I would have asked for
>
> the extra refund.
dave
GB
Nov 23, 2012, 2:40:02 AM11/23/12
to
On 18/11/2012 02:35, drkirkby wrote:
> By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60
> day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the
> Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
Just going off at a tangent. Are you saying that all foreign currency
> By the time the seller had processed the return, this exceeded the 60
> day limit by which a Paypal transaction can be cancelled. So the
> Paypal transaction can't be cancelled.
transactions within paypal can be cancelled without charge within 60
days? Even when they are just money transfers between friends? That
means they are offering a free option, and in principle there is *MUCH*
money to be made here.
Suppose that you send me $15,000 to be converted into sterling and at
the same time I send you £10,000 to be converted into $. (Roughly the
same values at the moment.) Paypal takes their 3% cut, so we make an
immediate 3% loss.
But, after 59 days, we see how the exchange rate has moved. If it has
moved less than 3%, we cancel both transactions. If the exchange rate
has moved more than 3%, one of the transactions will be showing a
profit, even after charges. So, we keep that one and cancel the other.
Rinse and repeat, but for much larger sums.
0 new messages