What can I do when a seller decides not to sell the item after I've won the auction and paid for it?

[sarlena416]

What can I do? First the seller told me that the item was damaged and she didn't want to sell an item that was not as described. I asked her to send me a photo of the damaged boots. Then her next message said she had donated the boots to Value Village that morning.

She refunded my money and cancelled the transaction.

If I had changed my mind, as the buyer, wouldn't I be reported as acting in bad faith? I am very angry, and I think both messages from her were total fabrications.

[sarlena416]

What can I do? First the seller told me that the item was damaged and she didn't want to sell an item that was not as described. I asked her to send me a photo of the damaged boots. Then her next message said she had donated the boots to Value Village that morning.

She refunded my money and cancelled the transaction.

If I had changed my mind, as the buyer, wouldn't I be reported as acting in bad faith? I am very angry, and I think both messages from her were total fabrications.

[gifts_of_elegance]

A listing is not a binding contract, despite what eBay claims.  It is merely an invitation to tender.  Sellers have the right to refuse to sell.

[reallynicestamps]

If I had changed my mind, as the buyer, wouldn't I be reported as acting in bad faith?

No, it is not unusual for a transaction to end by Mutual Cancellation when an unexpected problem arises. (Buyer loses job, dog chews item, etc.) These have no repercussions for buyer or seller.

If you watch the seller's site (make her a Favourite Seller) you may see the boots appear again and take action then. But she may also be telling the truth. After all, at this time of year Santa is watching.

[mater721]

"No, it is not unusual for a transaction to end by Mutual Cancellation"

But this does not sound like a mutual cancellation.

Does not seem right that a seller can unilaterally cancel a listing once it is at the bought stage.

As mentioned, are buyers not given a strike if they unilaterally decide not to pay?

[mater721]

"Sellers have the right to refuse to sell."

So buyers have a right not to pay?  Buyers remorse?  No strikes?

[reallynicestamps]

Apparently there is a new feature which allows a buyer to cancel a purchase within a few hours of buying. I'm not clear on the details, it turned up in a post, and I don't know what happens if the buyer pays and then cancels the sale.

All in all, I would rather have a buyer cancel a purchase which allows me to get my item back up and showing, than have to chase him through the Unpaid Item service holding me up for eight days before I can safely relist. Or even the more aimiable Mutual Cancellation which can take just as long if the buyer doesn't accept the cancellation immediately.

Mind you, I'm old and worked in retail for decades. Not every transaction is going to be successful. Not every buyer who cancels a sale is a scammer or insane.

Though I have stories......

[mater721]

"Apparently there is a new feature which allows a buyer to cancel a purchase within a few hours of buying. I'm not clear on the details, it turned up in a post, and I don't know what happens if the buyer pays and then cancels the sale."

Maybe I read OP wrong - thought it was seller that cancelled after-the-fact even though buyer was still interested.

If sellers can do this with impunity, leaves it open to horrible abuse - I've seen a few posts recently where sellers were cancelling transactions on single-bid wins... Just sounds completely wrong. Isn't that what reserve bids are for? Or higher start bid?

[pierrelebel]

"What can I do?"

You already left negative feedback, dropping the seller's feedback rating to 80%.  That is disastrous for the seller.

There is nothing else for you to do.

Time to move on.

[reallynicestamps]

That reply was about the post above it-- asking if buyers can cancel with impunity.

And yes, they can, if they move quickly.

[reallynicestamps]

I've seen a few posts recently where sellers were cancelling transactions on single-bid wins... Just sounds completely wrong.

That's been happening since around 1995. Nothing new. Not right, I agree, but not new.

Isn't that what reserve bids are for? Or higher start bid?

Reserves are a bad idea for the most part. Many potential buyers will backbutton away from auctions with Reserves. And the seller still has to pay a premium even if the item does not sell.

The higher start bid is the smart practice. Not only is the seller going to sell at a price he will be happy with, but those buyers who pay more are usually easier to deal with than the bottom feeders.

And then there is the customer who bids a sensible $100 but as the only bidder gets the item for the $10 starting price. He's really happy until the seller angers him by cancelling. And the seller loses not only that sale, but a potentially good future customer.