For example, if I were an American buyer purchasing a $300 item from a Canadian seller and have an INAD complaint, who should pay for returning the item? Am I going to trust that seller to reimburse me for the ca. $40 it might cost to return the item with tracking? If I'm the Canadian seller, would I send the money in advance, in order to avoid further problems, without any real assurance the item will be returned? So who is responsible in eBay's eyes for the impasse -- buyer or seller?
I'm not sure eBay would always find in the seller's favour in such scenarios should the buyer escalate the matter.
Unless the seller is planning on fighting the case because they believe that the item is not really nad, there is really is no question that the seller would lose if they refused to send a return label or funds for a label. But you seem to be suggesting that sellers would rather refund the full amount instead of just sending the buyer enough to return the item and I don't understand why someone would do that. Of course there is no guarantee that the buyer would use the money to return the item but there is even a smaller chance that they would return if if they were refunded in full.
The same principle applies to INR complaints -- come February 20th, a seller will just be safer to refund.
Nothing is changing in regard to that. You know that if you don't have tracking and a buyer claims inr, you have to refund or you will receive an unresolved claim against you. You wouldn't wait for them to escalate today so nothing will change in that regard in February. If tracking does show that an item as been delivered then you would not lose the case...nothing has changed.
w~~_7.JPG "pjcdn2005"){kind=avatar}
