Let buyers and sellers beware

Ahost of online sellers would do well to heed the warnings inherent in a couple of significant Commerce Commission prosecutions that should also help buyers better understand their rights. Amid mounting commission displeasure about the conduct of some car dealerships, an Auckland firm has been pinged for selling online cheap and, let’s say, unprepossessing vehicles on an ‘‘as is, where is’’ basis.

Which you can get away with if you’re a private seller trying to shift your clunker. But not when you’re a trader. Anyone who buys from a trader, whether online or not, has protections under law that don’t go away because of anything stated or implied in whatever deal they’ve struck.

Whether the company was doing so intentionally or not (and the court called it ‘‘lazy if not wilfully blind to its obligations’’) Vehicle Logistics, trading as Ssangyong Takanini, was misdirecting buyers away from important guarantees and warranty protections that rightly applied.

Can’t have that. As Judge Gerard Winter made plain, if left unchecked, attempts to contract out of the laws of the land could corrode the trust of consumers who use e-commerce in their daily lives. This, in turn, has implications for many reliable, decently performing online traders.

Incidentally some of those bluff traditionalists among us who still show up in actual shops might be tempted to scowl at those smarmy little signs that make declarations along the lines: ‘‘We will abide by the requirements of the Consumer Guarantees Act’’.

That’s nice of them, you might think. In most undertakings it’s not generally regarded as necessary, let alone all that impressive, to declare you’ve decided not to break the law.

But perhaps we should uncurl our lips. Such notices do serve the useful, necessary, purpose of reminding customers that rights apply. There’s nothing much wrong with that, however weird the wording.

Another recent commission case carries a different but sharp warning for prolific online sellers who fail to disclose their ‘‘in trade’’ status. This means they have failed to alert buyers of the consumer rights that kick in as a result.

A Palmerston North man, Bilal Shurab, has been fined $1500 on this basis. He was also fined $3500 for selling an unsafe cot online. Though the smaller fine was modest, the implications are not. This was the first time the commission has prosecuted, rather than issuing an infringement notice.

And it’s unlikely many people will rush to console Shurab. He had more than 1300 Trade Me listings from November 2016 to April 2017.

Perhaps it doesn’t go without saying that ‘‘in trade’’ status isn’t necessarily something sellers get to decide whether or not to bestow upon themselves.

If you’re selling online something you bought for personal use, you’re not in trade. But if you’re making, buying or obtaining goods with the intention of selling them, if you’re regularly or habitually offering to sell goods or services online, then you continue at your peril if you’re not going to be honest with yourself and others about what you’re doing. At least make a decent effort to confirm your rightful status.

‘‘Anyone who buys from a trader, whether online or not, has protections under law that don’t go away because of anything stated or implied in whatever deal they’ve struck.’’