Selling recalled batteries is a violaton of eBay regulations

[danieldavid]

I'd like to add my $0.02 to the thread about what to do if you purchase a recalled Lenovo batteries on eBay that will not be replaced by Lenovo.

Please see the original now locked thread:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=47317

I've checked the eBay guidelines and in my opinion it is covered by the category "Hazardous, Restricted, and Perishable Items" (please see http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/haz ... rials.html ) of their "Prohibited and Restricted Items" (please see http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/items-ov.html ).

If the seller was aware of this condition, it may be also constitute a misrepresentation of the item, but I could not find the relevant clause.

Thus, if I were to purchase such an item, I would contact the seller asking if he or she were aware of this problem, and request a refund because it was against eBay guidelines to list it for sale in the first place.

As a last resort I would file a complaint with eBay against this seller for the above violations.

I hope this may be of help.
- Daniel

P.S: I'm not sure if Paypal's buyers' protection plan applies in this case.

[Nick Y]

I posted a comment to 'Battery Recall. Help, Please!' this morning; edited it with a couple of after thoughts, but then my comment disappeared and the topic has been locked. Strange, but I assume someone said something of which a/the moderators disagreed. (Hope it wasn't me!)

My comment was that I understood that recalled batteries had to be returned to IBM to claim the replacement battery. If correct, how did this one get replaced and then onto Ebay?

[bin.dong]

Thank you! Thank you very much! This is what I need!

[danieldavid]

One very important point: I hope that you haven’t left any feedback (especially negative) for this transaction.

From my experience, sellers are more likely to cooperate in resolving a dispute if they have not yet been given feedback, because they know that a negative can still be avoided. If it doesn’t work out, you’d still have 90 days from the end of auction to act.

This strategy has always worked well for me in my 7 years of eBay experience - many good purchases, a copuple of disputes and zero negative feedbacks received or left for others.

Please keep us posted on any progress.
- Daniel

[bin.dong]

No neg feedback at all, even the seller won't refund money back to me.

However, I don't like the answer from IBM. Today, an IBM manager called me about this thing. He said, if I wanna, I can sell it to someone else! The same answer which I got a couple of days ago from a IBM rep. I mean if IBM doesn't wanna do anything about this, it's OK but DO not say something like this, right?

[bill bolton]

eBay in the US has a policy about selling recalled products, with the definition of recalled product being related to the notices issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. The CPSC has issued the Lenovo recall notices on batteries in September 2006 and March 2007.

You can lodge a complaint with eBay about the seller if they explicitly listed the battery as being recalled. This may not help you financially but it will prevent the seller doing a similar thing again.

It would be helpful if you indicated the item number of the eBay auction involved, in order to take this topic out of the class of hearsay reportage.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[ccotenj]

No neg feedback at all, even the seller won't refund money back to me.

you really should neg him... when people don't neg bad sellers, it hurts the whole ebay community...

personally, i'd neg him and then use the ebay complaint process... that's what it's there for...

[bin.dong]

eBay item #: 220113520950

By the way, the replacement battery was ordered on 2006-10-06. It's confirmed by IBM.

[bill bolton]

eBay item #: 220113520950

Since the seller made no claim one way or the other about the recall status of the battery, did post the serial number of the battery in response to a question several days prior to you placing a bid on it, and is clearly not a bulk seller of batteries or ThinkPad stuff, I think you really don't have much leverage anywhere here.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[bin.dong]

I don't have any problems with the seller. I said this at the very beginning on the other thread.

My concern is how IBM handle this thing. I mean, battery recall because these batteries have potential problems. There are a large amount of defective batteries on the market, like eBay. someone may or may not know these batteries are defective or being recalled. They buy them and they'll still use the unsafe batteries on their laptops. However IBM can only send one replacement battery for that battery which is being recalled. What if people don't return that defective battery back to IBM? How does IBM deal with this?

[coreman]

I posted a comment to 'Battery Recall. Help, Please!' this morning; edited it with a couple of after thoughts, but then my comment disappeared and the topic has been locked. Strange, but I assume someone said something of which a/the moderators disagreed. (Hope it wasn't me!)

*meekly raises his hand*

I think it was my comment ...I won't repeat it again, didn't mean any harm but was agreeing with those that said the odds of anything happening were very, very low. My last comment was probably the cause of the lockup so I'll leave it unrepeated...but one of the above posts (which will remain unnamed) follows similar thinking to mine.

[rkawakami]

What if people don't return that defective battery back to IBM? How does IBM deal with this?

Well, I was not part of the recall so I don't know exactly how it was set up, and I may be stepping into sometime here that's going to cause a ruckus, but in an ideal world what should have happened is this:

- Thinkpad user confirms that the battery is part of the recall
- IBM/Lenovo sends replacement battery after getting credit card details
- When user gets the new batttery, (s)/he returns recalled battery in pre-paid box (with tracking #) to avoid getting charged for the replacement
- IBM/Lenovo destroys battery and cancels credit card charge

or

- User requests pre-paid box, returns the defective battery and IBM/Lenovo ships out the replacement

Yes there's several problems with either course of action, but it's the only way you can prod the user into returning the battery. If there was any easy way that the defective battery could have been kept by the user, then there's the obvious temptation to continue using the battery and/or sell it for profit.

For your particular case, IBM/Lenovo should now be asking you to send the defective battery back to them (at their expense) and ship you a replacement. IMO, that's the right thing to do. If you contact them again, impress upon them the fact that you are willing to do the right thing by returning the battery and thus preventing them from the possible legal exposure of a flaming laptop.

[BillMorrow]

ray, i disagree with you on this..

IBM/lenovo have no liability, IMO, at all, since they performed under the recall..
all the details are unknown on this particular battery and how it got back into circulation..

bin.dong, you need to reveal the seller to this community so no one esle is cheated by this fellow..

this is now your problem because you were cheated by this ebay seller..
i would document the status of this battery and go to war with the seller via the ebay and paypal process..
regardless of whether he told you it was a potential bomb, it is a bomb and thus he should refund all your payment..


i think that that should be that..!

[coreman]

I agree with Ray...

The sole purpose of a recall is to prevent/minimize new incidents from occurring and reduce exposure of mfg to expensive litigation.

Free battery exchanges or free upgrades to your vehicle or whatever else a manufacturer might do is simply done to encourage people to return their products for repair/replacement.

After all, would you return a battery if you had to pay $125 to get a replacement? Of course not...most people would wait to see if a problem developed and then take appropriate courses of action. Mfgs use recalls to prevent further incidents as well as to satisfy their customers.

But this case is actually a bit troubling for me, a recalled battery was identified not once, but twice and yet no action was taken by the mfg to remove it from the field. The fact it was replaced has zero to do with the purpose of the recall...which was to remove such batteries from the field.

If this battery were to fail later after (2) notifications to the mfg...well, I think you can guess the rest...

[bill bolton]

If this battery were to fail later after (2) notifications to the mfg...well, I think you can guess the rest...

Unless you have specific current qualifiactions in the law with respect to product recalls in the US, your strongly held beliefs are no subsititue for sound legal advice.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[rkawakami]

ray, i disagree with you on this..

IBM/lenovo have no liability, IMO, at all, since they performed under the recall.. all the details are unknown on this particular battery and how it got back into circulation..

Sorry Bill, but I have to respectfully respond with this: That the battery has already been flagged in a database somewhere as having been previously replaced and yet, here it is still being used or sold, does not, in my book, represent "performance" of a recall. I've looked back at a couple of threads and information online and have a question.. Did IBM or Lenovo give the customer a choice of recycling or disposing the recalled battery themselves, without any incentive to NOT do so? If this was the case, that was a bad business decision and I can see that there may be many more such batteries out "in the wild". If, on the other hand, there were strict procedures in place that made the user return the defective battery to the factory before receiving the replacement, then again, IBM/Lenovo did not "perform" the recall as somehow it has escaped.

In short, regardless of how it got back into circulation, the fact that it obviously has, means to me that the recall has failed for this particular battery.

bin.dong, you need to reveal the seller to this community so no one esle is cheated by this fellow..

I believe he has somewhat identified the seller by providing the eBay item #. As the item will go "missing" in a few months as eBay purges the old auctions, and since you requested it, here's the eBay seller's ID: jws1215

edit: Did some poking around the CPSC.gov site and found this:

Recall Handbook

In it is this:

The objectives of a recall are:

1. To locate all defective products as quickly as possible;

2. To remove defective products from the distribution chain and from the possession of consumers; and

3. To communicate accurate and understandable information in a timely manner to the public about the product defect, the hazard, and the corrective action. Companies should design all informational material to motivate retailers and media to get the word out and consumers to act on the recall.

[BillMorrow]

i'm was lazy to go looking up the ebay seller..


re. the bum battery itself..
i still think lenovo's liability ended with the first recall..

though i might be overruled by some law or statute..

regardless, bin.dong has been cheated..

so if it were me, i would go after the seller by disputing any payment..

EDIT:
ray, you have changed my opinion..
how this battery got away needs to be investigated..
it might be that lenovo performed and a sub-contractor leaked batteries out the back door..
or that lenovo's procedures have failed..

if it is worth a recall in the first place it is worth making sure that it is permanently out of public hands..

this brings to mind a recall of some years ago..
the AC adapters for the i Series were recalled..
yet some mo0nths thereafter i came into posession on one..!
(i forget how, at this point, but it was a recalled AC adapter)