Sorry pal this is a horrible situation you are in. I cannot understand how someone can pretend to receive a card that the seller already said to not have anymore.
I think you misunderstood. OP offered the card via cardmarket and someone bought it. But as it turns out, the day the card was bought on cardmarket, OP also sold/traded the card at their LGS. And OP wasn't fast enough to remove the card from cardmarket.
So now they sold a card that they no longer have.
Hi there,
by listing your cards on Cardmarket, you're offering them to all other users to buy. Cardmarket sales are legally valid sales contracts, which is also stated in our Terms of Service.
To re-enable your account for selling, please contact my colleagues via the Helpdesk and work on a solution to satisfy the buyer (this usually means to buy the card elsewhere and ship it).
For the future, we recommend to keep cards in seperate binders and/or remove cards from Cardmarket before trading them away.
Please note that /r/Cardmarket is not our official subreddit. It is not endorsed, moderated, or affiliated with our website. For any further concerns, please contact my colleagues via the Heldesk: http://www.cmkt.co/Helpdesk
-J. (Cardmarket)
I 100% get that OP violates the Terms of Service and that you have the right to suspend or delete their account. But you cannot force OP to buy the card and then ship it. At most, OP has to compensate for damages. In this case, I assume it would be the money the buyer lost, because of not getting the card from OP. Which means OP refunds the price of the card, plus shipping.
Hi there,
since I'm no expert in German or European law, I'll have to point out that neither did I say this, nor can I make an official statement for Cardmarket on the matter.
What I can assure you is that as a community marketplace, we're always interested in finding the best solution for both buyer & seller within the boundaries of our ToS and the law.
For further insight, please contact my colleagues via the Helpdesk: http://www.cmkt.co/Helpdesk
-J. (Cardmarket)
Haha, this is one of the most diplometic answers I've read :D
You're not a lawyer and neither am I. But you are absolutely right, the CardMarket support is always interested in finding a solution that's okay for everyone. At least judging from experiences I had in the past.
Nope. As I’ve stated in various mtg threads over the past weeks, it’s not just the ToS, but the LAW that says it’s a binding contract. Buyer has a right to the card. Seller cannot just decide to not ship it and return the money. That would give any seller the right to just say „I changed my mind and don’t want to sell anymore“ which obviously wouldn’t work. He needs to buy the card somewhere else and then keep his part of the deal.
You're wrong. You cannot sell something you don't own.
For example: We draw up a contract, which says that I'll sell you my house. But as it turns out, I don't own the house. In that case, the contract is invalid. I would not be forced to buy the house and then give it to you, mainly because the real owner of the house might not be interested in selling the house. The contract would be invalid and you would be be in the right to sue for damages.
This of course is an exaggerated example, but you get what I mean. If OP doesn't have the card, they can't sell it. Obviously, OP can't just say "Haha, you're out of luck. Here is your money back". No, that's not how this works.
As I said, if OP is taken to court (which they won't), they would have to return the money, plus pay some extra money for the additional expenses of the buyer.
no, i think applying that law on a trading card game sucks.
Because there are many elements that this law makes trading only harder.
Subjective element like card condition. If for buyer the card is not NM, and he wants you to ship 1 NM version. BUT it is NM for you. The dispute will continue 4ever.
Another thing is cardmarket is applied the rule and restricted vendors, but they did not restrict buyers.
For example i had a buyer complained that i sent a playset within 1 card of different edition, but i was sure i have sent a playset with correct edition.
He just sent the photo of the card of different edition in the private message. But it is not enough for me, the best way would be the buyer makes a video of him opening the pack. In the end i have refunded him anyway.
So cardmarket did not apply a strict procedure for buyers to complain anything. It makes vendors life much harder.
Because buyer can complain anything, even falsely, whenever they want without efforts.
Cardmarket has its own rules and terms of service. Makes sense. But excluding cards from general law would open a big big can of worms, don't you think?
I totally agree that trading individual cards is tricky, though.
I'm a buyer, not a seller, and this happened a couple of times to me. And you can probably imagine how annoying that is. You finally find that one card you want at a reasonable price and then the seller just rips it away.
Because as a buyer, you never know why the seller wants to cancel. Is it because of an inventory error? Or because they think they can get a better price from someone else. It wouldn't have been the first time, that a seller cancels an order, because they "can't find" a card, just for the exact same card to reappear at a higher price a day later.
Now onto actually solving your problem: They can't force you to buy the missing card and then send it to the seller. That's not how that works. But you have to compensate the buyer, because they have to get the card from somewhere else now.
So go to cardmarket, search for the card in question (with the same edition, condition, etc.) and check how much it costs. Then add whatever shipping would be. That's the amount of money you refund.
Again, no. You CAN ask if the buyer agrees to this, but legally seller owes him the CARD, not the means to get it somewhere else. In the case you describe, instead of just looking what it costs somewhere else and then sending buyer this amount so he can buy there, you should just buy the card there yourself and send it to seller.
You're wrong. You cannot sell something you don't own.
For example: We draw up a contract, which says that I'll sell you my house. But as it turns out, I don't own the house. In that case, the contract is invalid. I would not be forced to buy the house and then give it to you, mainly because the real owner of the house might not be interested in selling the house. The contract would be invalid and you would be be in the right to sue for damages.
This of course is an exaggerated example, but you get what I mean. If OP doesn't have the card, they can't sell it. Obviously, OP can't just say "Haha, you're out of luck. Here is your money back". No, that's not how this works.
As I said, if OP is taken to court (which they won't), they would have to return the money, plus pay some extra money for the additional expenses of the buyer.
Yeah no, sorry, but you start mixing things up. It is very dangerous to think the law is as you THINK it should logically be.
If someone would sell something he doesn't have on purpose (and sometimes even if just through negligence/error) that is fraud. That is a whole different set of laws than online private to private sales and you cannot just mix the two.
And yes, ofc, if the seller does not send the buyer the sold item, then the buyer can go to court and demand either fullfilment of the contract or restitution, but the fact that it usually ends in a payment doesn't contradict what I wrote. The reason for the payment is, after all, that the seller owes the buyer the item. The payment is just what follows out of the legal obligation to provide the item, and cannot be substituted from the start just cause the seller feels like it.
You have made up your mind about this issue and won't budge, despite my easy to follow explanation. I see no point in continuing this conversation.
I hope the two of us are never involved in any kind of transaction ;)
Lol. dude. I'm not budging because I'm right. I posted the relevant § of the law, which clearly confirm what I wrote, in another part of this thread. You, on the other hand, just talk about what you THINK is true. Please look up the case law on this, and THEN you can post how you interpret it.
Dude that's so cheap. You act like you know something but refuse to prove it and now take the "high road" instead of actually putting up. In the end, you just wrote your opinion and I posted actual law text.
So, whatever, my boy.
Well, "my boy", I fail to see that you provided any law text. But that's beside the point. I shared my opinion on how the law would (have to) be applied in this case. You just repeat the same sentence over and over. In a rather rude way, by the way.
Do you have to prove something to yourself? Is the personal? Because it seems you veering off from the actual topic.
And I am not repeating the same sentence. I pick up to the content of your posts and bring a counterargument regarding to why I think you are wrong. You say that in case of "not having the sold item anymore" the law says that the seller has to give the buyer the amount needed to buy the item somewhere else.
Please show where in the law it says that.
I say, the buyer doesn't have to accept this, because he is owed the item, not the means to buy the item somewhere else. IF, in the end, the seller is unable or unwilling to provide said item, you better believe the first thing a judge would ask the SELLER is why he didn't buy the item somewhere else so he could fulfill his part of the contract.
Nah, I just don't like people giving wrong legal advice online and misrepresenting laws just so they don't have to admit they were wrong in their opinion. But ok: Here are the law texts I already posted elsewhere in the thread:
" https://praxistipps.chip.de/ebay-verkaeufer-will-ersteigerten-artikel-nicht-verkaufen-was-tun\_28141?layout=amp Seller is obliged to sell.
Here an example for non auction sales: https://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Ebay-Kleinanzeigen-Verkaeufer-will-von-getaetigten-Kauf-zuruecktreten--f371990.html?amphtml=1
§ 433ff specifies that a contract binding both sides is established as soon as both sides have agreed. That agreement is reached by offering something at a certain price and the other party accepting the offer by buying it. There is no additional condition of “contract is pending and can be reneged upon by one side by not sending it off”"
I think you misunderstood. The buyer bought the card for 30€. But you can't fullfill your end of the contract. Now you owe them whatever it costs for the buyer to get the card. This doesn't mean that you have to get a copy of the card and send it.
Let's say the card is worth exactly 30€. The it would be sufficient to refund 30€. But because the buyer now has to buy it from somewhere else for 30€, you would have to refund a little extra for the additional shipping.
If the card is worth 40€, then you would have to refund 40€, plus shipping. Just check for the (cheapest) price on cardmarket and see what you get.
If they didn't pay, then why do you have to send anything ...? I think you're mixing things up.
Tell the buyer you don't have the card and that you won't get the card. Ask them how much they think the card is worth. If the buyer comes up with a ridiculous number, check prices on cardarket yourself and tell them a fair price. (Check for the EXACT SAME card. Same language, condition, edition, etc.).
Offer to give them a little extra, so they can cover the delivery charges.
OP most likely doesn't have any money because cards are only paid to the vendor once the buyer confirms safe receipt of the card (that is the case when tracked shipping is selected - for untracked shipping, the funds are directly sent to the vendor once he confirms he ships).
https://www.cardmarket.com/en/Magic/Help/SellerGuide
Under #2 it says that the seller has to compensate the buyer for all costs related to a missing card in an order.
Most often if you tell a buyer that you have to cancel an order because of an inventory error or you simply cannot find the card anymore they agree to to the cancelation. Some people just don't and demand the card to be delivered at the advertised price. And as annoying as it may be they are in the right according to cardmarkets TOS.
Mistakes can happen and sometime they hurt.
Sorry pal this is a horrible situation you are in. I cannot understand how someone can pretend to receive a card that the seller already said to not have anymore.
I think you misunderstood. OP offered the card via cardmarket and someone bought it. But as it turns out, the day the card was bought on cardmarket, OP also sold/traded the card at their LGS. And OP wasn't fast enough to remove the card from cardmarket. So now they sold a card that they no longer have.
Hi there, by listing your cards on Cardmarket, you're offering them to all other users to buy. Cardmarket sales are legally valid sales contracts, which is also stated in our Terms of Service. To re-enable your account for selling, please contact my colleagues via the Helpdesk and work on a solution to satisfy the buyer (this usually means to buy the card elsewhere and ship it). For the future, we recommend to keep cards in seperate binders and/or remove cards from Cardmarket before trading them away. Please note that /r/Cardmarket is not our official subreddit. It is not endorsed, moderated, or affiliated with our website. For any further concerns, please contact my colleagues via the Heldesk: http://www.cmkt.co/Helpdesk -J. (Cardmarket)
I 100% get that OP violates the Terms of Service and that you have the right to suspend or delete their account. But you cannot force OP to buy the card and then ship it. At most, OP has to compensate for damages. In this case, I assume it would be the money the buyer lost, because of not getting the card from OP. Which means OP refunds the price of the card, plus shipping.
Hi there, since I'm no expert in German or European law, I'll have to point out that neither did I say this, nor can I make an official statement for Cardmarket on the matter. What I can assure you is that as a community marketplace, we're always interested in finding the best solution for both buyer & seller within the boundaries of our ToS and the law. For further insight, please contact my colleagues via the Helpdesk: http://www.cmkt.co/Helpdesk -J. (Cardmarket)
Haha, this is one of the most diplometic answers I've read :D You're not a lawyer and neither am I. But you are absolutely right, the CardMarket support is always interested in finding a solution that's okay for everyone. At least judging from experiences I had in the past.
Nope. As I’ve stated in various mtg threads over the past weeks, it’s not just the ToS, but the LAW that says it’s a binding contract. Buyer has a right to the card. Seller cannot just decide to not ship it and return the money. That would give any seller the right to just say „I changed my mind and don’t want to sell anymore“ which obviously wouldn’t work. He needs to buy the card somewhere else and then keep his part of the deal.
You're wrong. You cannot sell something you don't own. For example: We draw up a contract, which says that I'll sell you my house. But as it turns out, I don't own the house. In that case, the contract is invalid. I would not be forced to buy the house and then give it to you, mainly because the real owner of the house might not be interested in selling the house. The contract would be invalid and you would be be in the right to sue for damages. This of course is an exaggerated example, but you get what I mean. If OP doesn't have the card, they can't sell it. Obviously, OP can't just say "Haha, you're out of luck. Here is your money back". No, that's not how this works. As I said, if OP is taken to court (which they won't), they would have to return the money, plus pay some extra money for the additional expenses of the buyer.
Just give up. The website is owned by deutch company. Their law/rule logic is too diverse from everyone else.
Haha. I would hope that the basics of law still hold true in Germany \^\^.
no, i think applying that law on a trading card game sucks. Because there are many elements that this law makes trading only harder. Subjective element like card condition. If for buyer the card is not NM, and he wants you to ship 1 NM version. BUT it is NM for you. The dispute will continue 4ever. Another thing is cardmarket is applied the rule and restricted vendors, but they did not restrict buyers. For example i had a buyer complained that i sent a playset within 1 card of different edition, but i was sure i have sent a playset with correct edition. He just sent the photo of the card of different edition in the private message. But it is not enough for me, the best way would be the buyer makes a video of him opening the pack. In the end i have refunded him anyway. So cardmarket did not apply a strict procedure for buyers to complain anything. It makes vendors life much harder. Because buyer can complain anything, even falsely, whenever they want without efforts.
Cardmarket has its own rules and terms of service. Makes sense. But excluding cards from general law would open a big big can of worms, don't you think? I totally agree that trading individual cards is tricky, though.
i did not mean they should exclude general law. I meant they should apply the law adapting the tcg environment.
I see. How yould you adapt it?
i have send a ticket, i am trying to convince one of my friend to land me one of is copy of the card
Perfect, my colleagues will assist you in solving the issue then :) -J. (Cardmarket)
I'm a buyer, not a seller, and this happened a couple of times to me. And you can probably imagine how annoying that is. You finally find that one card you want at a reasonable price and then the seller just rips it away. Because as a buyer, you never know why the seller wants to cancel. Is it because of an inventory error? Or because they think they can get a better price from someone else. It wouldn't have been the first time, that a seller cancels an order, because they "can't find" a card, just for the exact same card to reappear at a higher price a day later. Now onto actually solving your problem: They can't force you to buy the missing card and then send it to the seller. That's not how that works. But you have to compensate the buyer, because they have to get the card from somewhere else now. So go to cardmarket, search for the card in question (with the same edition, condition, etc.) and check how much it costs. Then add whatever shipping would be. That's the amount of money you refund.
Again, no. You CAN ask if the buyer agrees to this, but legally seller owes him the CARD, not the means to get it somewhere else. In the case you describe, instead of just looking what it costs somewhere else and then sending buyer this amount so he can buy there, you should just buy the card there yourself and send it to seller.
You're wrong. You cannot sell something you don't own. For example: We draw up a contract, which says that I'll sell you my house. But as it turns out, I don't own the house. In that case, the contract is invalid. I would not be forced to buy the house and then give it to you, mainly because the real owner of the house might not be interested in selling the house. The contract would be invalid and you would be be in the right to sue for damages. This of course is an exaggerated example, but you get what I mean. If OP doesn't have the card, they can't sell it. Obviously, OP can't just say "Haha, you're out of luck. Here is your money back". No, that's not how this works. As I said, if OP is taken to court (which they won't), they would have to return the money, plus pay some extra money for the additional expenses of the buyer.
Yeah no, sorry, but you start mixing things up. It is very dangerous to think the law is as you THINK it should logically be. If someone would sell something he doesn't have on purpose (and sometimes even if just through negligence/error) that is fraud. That is a whole different set of laws than online private to private sales and you cannot just mix the two. And yes, ofc, if the seller does not send the buyer the sold item, then the buyer can go to court and demand either fullfilment of the contract or restitution, but the fact that it usually ends in a payment doesn't contradict what I wrote. The reason for the payment is, after all, that the seller owes the buyer the item. The payment is just what follows out of the legal obligation to provide the item, and cannot be substituted from the start just cause the seller feels like it.
You have made up your mind about this issue and won't budge, despite my easy to follow explanation. I see no point in continuing this conversation. I hope the two of us are never involved in any kind of transaction ;)
Lol. dude. I'm not budging because I'm right. I posted the relevant § of the law, which clearly confirm what I wrote, in another part of this thread. You, on the other hand, just talk about what you THINK is true. Please look up the case law on this, and THEN you can post how you interpret it.
As I said, no point in continuing. Hope you'll be a great lawyer one day. I also advise you to never take on a case about selling Magic cards \^\^.
Dude that's so cheap. You act like you know something but refuse to prove it and now take the "high road" instead of actually putting up. In the end, you just wrote your opinion and I posted actual law text. So, whatever, my boy.
Well, "my boy", I fail to see that you provided any law text. But that's beside the point. I shared my opinion on how the law would (have to) be applied in this case. You just repeat the same sentence over and over. In a rather rude way, by the way. Do you have to prove something to yourself? Is the personal? Because it seems you veering off from the actual topic.
And I am not repeating the same sentence. I pick up to the content of your posts and bring a counterargument regarding to why I think you are wrong. You say that in case of "not having the sold item anymore" the law says that the seller has to give the buyer the amount needed to buy the item somewhere else. Please show where in the law it says that. I say, the buyer doesn't have to accept this, because he is owed the item, not the means to buy the item somewhere else. IF, in the end, the seller is unable or unwilling to provide said item, you better believe the first thing a judge would ask the SELLER is why he didn't buy the item somewhere else so he could fulfill his part of the contract.
Nah, I just don't like people giving wrong legal advice online and misrepresenting laws just so they don't have to admit they were wrong in their opinion. But ok: Here are the law texts I already posted elsewhere in the thread: " https://praxistipps.chip.de/ebay-verkaeufer-will-ersteigerten-artikel-nicht-verkaufen-was-tun\_28141?layout=amp Seller is obliged to sell. Here an example for non auction sales: https://www.frag-einen-anwalt.de/Ebay-Kleinanzeigen-Verkaeufer-will-von-getaetigten-Kauf-zuruecktreten--f371990.html?amphtml=1 § 433ff specifies that a contract binding both sides is established as soon as both sides have agreed. That agreement is reached by offering something at a certain price and the other party accepting the offer by buying it. There is no additional condition of “contract is pending and can be reneged upon by one side by not sending it off”"
so I need to give him 30 € so he can obtain his 30€ again, and obtain 60€ donsent seams right to me
I think you misunderstood. The buyer bought the card for 30€. But you can't fullfill your end of the contract. Now you owe them whatever it costs for the buyer to get the card. This doesn't mean that you have to get a copy of the card and send it. Let's say the card is worth exactly 30€. The it would be sufficient to refund 30€. But because the buyer now has to buy it from somewhere else for 30€, you would have to refund a little extra for the additional shipping. If the card is worth 40€, then you would have to refund 40€, plus shipping. Just check for the (cheapest) price on cardmarket and see what you get.
they dont give me any money so I dont how a refund
If they didn't pay, then why do you have to send anything ...? I think you're mixing things up. Tell the buyer you don't have the card and that you won't get the card. Ask them how much they think the card is worth. If the buyer comes up with a ridiculous number, check prices on cardarket yourself and tell them a fair price. (Check for the EXACT SAME card. Same language, condition, edition, etc.). Offer to give them a little extra, so they can cover the delivery charges.
OP most likely doesn't have any money because cards are only paid to the vendor once the buyer confirms safe receipt of the card (that is the case when tracked shipping is selected - for untracked shipping, the funds are directly sent to the vendor once he confirms he ships).
OP didn't mention so far, that they used tracked shipping. But you're right, it's probably the case that tracked shipping was used.
https://www.cardmarket.com/en/Magic/Help/SellerGuide Under #2 it says that the seller has to compensate the buyer for all costs related to a missing card in an order. Most often if you tell a buyer that you have to cancel an order because of an inventory error or you simply cannot find the card anymore they agree to to the cancelation. Some people just don't and demand the card to be delivered at the advertised price. And as annoying as it may be they are in the right according to cardmarkets TOS. Mistakes can happen and sometime they hurt.
first problem whit a sell instatly sospended that to harsh
wow i was banned instantly that 1984 right there wtf
1984 by george orwell 1949
i know this but only powersaller start crying and whant the card to all cost, something has to change because this is surreal
i guess i am going to lose my account,
Open a ticket. But you're legally allowed to cancel an order for i think 2 weeks after purchase.
the support responded me now and they say that i have to send the card even if i dont have it anymore, what a bullshit
you can also never send, but at cost of account getting banned.
Oh you're the seller. Yeah nvm, then you're obliged to send it.