Hacker News Reader

Comment by qwertox | Hacker News Reader

But wouldn't this become an issue between the seller and the buyer, if Amazon is "just adhering" to what is stipulated in the contract?

To me this sounds like Amazon is saying "this is too complicated for us, and we don't see how to deal with it, because we don't know who's telling the truth". Like "If you've got a problem and a case, go to the police; not against us, but against the buyer".

View on HN

Hmm, my first thought is: contacting a buyer outside of Amazon is against Amazon's TOS.

But if the author isn't interested in using Amazon after this incident, Amazon's TOS don't matter much.

I'd be interested to hear from someone with a bit more legal knowledge how this might go. It's a good thought for sure.

Why would he contact the buyer outside of Amazon? He would go to the police to point out his issue with the buyer, there's absolutely no need to contact him outside of Amazon.

I'd rather think that Amazon would be forthcoming in assisting any demands an investigation would make, like provide all the information regarding the seller and buyer on this issue to the police.

Sure, it would be nice if Amazon would withhold the money from the buyer until it is proven that the seller has obtained the item, but how does this get proven?

> Why would he contact the buyer outside of Amazon?

You can't sue the buyer by serving Amazon.

Got a good laugh out of "He would go to the police to" and "provide all the information regarding the seller and buyer on this issue to the police"

Thanks for that.

Ahh so parent comment wasn't sarcasm. Welp. Poe's law strikes again.

This is not a case where the police would be helpful, at least in the US. The police in the US generally will defer financial disputes to the courts.

They also, in my experience, defer dealing with theft to insurance companies.

Yep. One time I tracked down a stolen iPhone on Craigslist. The police were impressed I had the serial number, the original box, the receipt, and the photo showed the email address the iPhone was locked to.

They gave the guy a call, he answered with "no hablo inglés" so they hung up and told me, "Sorry, nothing we can do."

Amazon takes the position that this counts as "soliciting payments from buyers outside of Amazon", which is prohibited by the ToS.

See https://www.facebook.com/lalawgroup/posts/1719796444820559

My understanding is they sued the customer, Amazon stepped in to defend them, and they got a judgement against Amazon. But Amazon suspended their account in the meantime.

> But Amazon suspended their account in the meantime.

...which wouldn't matter in this case, because the seller isn't going to use Amazon again anyway after this experience.

Linked post says:

> Nonetheless, the court found that Amazon was at fault, and liable for the item, and ordered a judgment in favor of plaintiff against Amazon.

So basically sounds like the seller recovered their money.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how is it not illegal to essentially try to subvert the court system by punishing the customer/seller for using it. If I worked into he judiciary, I would be very irate at Amazon trying to establish their own law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com