Make an exception on the merchant agreement( deadlines rule)

[Scroll32]

Hey mcm,


I was reading this scam report today: https://www.mc-market.org/threads/667496/

There were 2 claims on the scam report, one of which I thought was fine but then there was something I didn't quite agree with and think should be amended. This is where V3rtic wanted $75 dollars back that he paid specifically for the service to be delivered by a certain date. But he didn't get the money due to the following rules in the merchant agreement:
Deadlines

If a deadline is failed, but the waiting party continues with the deal afterwards, the deadline is dismissed, and they are no longer entitled a refund or compensation for that deadline having been missed.

While I agree with that statement generally, I don't think this should apply for any fees added to the cost specifically for the deadline to be made. I'm open to different viewpoints on this, but I don't see where the justification is if you pay a specific agreed fee to get paid during a certain time and that time isn't meet how you should still be paid that fee.

 

[Scroll32]

As far as I am aware individual terms override the Merchant Agreement

Thats what I thought, but the scam report says otherwise which is why I made the thread so this could be clarified.

 

[twinightcreep0]

Thats what I thought, but the scam report says otherwise which is why I made the thread so this could be clarified.

Terms mutually agreed to by both parties will always take precedence over those outlined in the Merchant Agreement. Such terms are usually clearly presented in Scam Reports. In this particular case, there is a shortage of evidence for multiple reasons, resulting in the proposed term being less clear. It would be unjust to say that any user is entitled to something solely based on a claim that a term existed and was mutually agreed to.

 

[AryzieMC]

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one reading that report and thinking that but if it’s a verbal contract on the buyers behalf that sucks

 

[Scroll32]

Terms mutually agreed to by both parties will always take precedence over those outlined in the Merchant Agreement. Such terms are usually clearly presented in Scam Reports. In this particular case, there is a shortage of evidence for multiple reasons, resulting in the proposed term being less clear. It would be unjust to say that any user is entitled to something solely based on a claim that a term existed and was mutually agreed to.

Fair enough, but at the same time to my understanding if he did not say he would refund him if he didn't mean the deadline, but did agree that he was paid a fee specifically for meeting a deadline then he should still be refunded. Just thought thats a reasonable expectation, and I get there is a lack of evidence in the scam report which I get, but for future cases the standard should be if you pay an extra fee for it to be meet by a date and you don't, you don't get paid.

 

[Justis]

Fair enough, but at the same time to my understanding if he did not say he would refund him if he didn't mean the deadline, but did agree that he was paid a fee specifically for meeting a deadline then he should still be refunded. Just thought thats a reasonable expectation, and I get there is a lack of evidence in the scam report which I get, but for future cases the standard should be if you pay an extra fee for it to be meet by a date and you don't, you don't get paid.

What you’re describing is already the case. If a user pays an additional fee for having a product delivered by a closer date, and the product is not delivered by that date, then the user has not received what they paid for, and they should be refunded that additional fee.

The thread you linked is to an on-going scam report in which evidence is still being collected on what the original agreement contained. Of course, we can’t enforce one-sided claims of an agreement, there needs to be evidence provided for it. Looking over the scam report, it seems that evidence has been provided today, so the outcome may be different from what you were anticipating.

 

[Scroll32]

What you’re describing is already the case. If a user pays an additional fee for having a product delivered by a closer date, and the product is not delivered by that date, then the user has not received what they paid for, and they should be refunded that additional fee.

The thread you linked is to an on-going scam report in which evidence is still being collected on what the original agreement contained. Of course, we can’t enforce one-sided claims of an agreement, there needs to be evidence provided for it. Looking over the scam report, it seems that evidence has been provided today, so the outcome may be different from what you were anticipating.

Thanks for clarifying that, I would just at least think that they would ask slipe if he was indeed paid a $75 dollar fee to have it done in a deadline. I still don't see the issue clarifying that in the merchant agreement as to me the defense of why he didn't get a refund on the fee ((or at least in the beginning)) was because he agreed to move forward with getting the product, so a little clarification on that wouldn't hurt in my view.