Morning to everyone reading this, I won a brand-new PUMA LaMelo Ball MB.01 Alien Safari for very cheap. (21.50) I was really happy about that at first. I collect this series. Collectors know that the sneaker box is important too. Especially this one, because it looks very elaborate. I’ve already had cases where the seller, to save money, simply sealed the outer box with brown packing tape and shipped the sneakers in it. The box was then no longer usable. I also offered the seller an extra 3 euros for a bag or something similar. Here’s my first email: Morning, I won your nice shoes. Please don’t put any tape over the box. I collect these models. And the box is important to me. Greetings from the North Sea coast, J.C.Becker. First response, he sells at unbeatable prices, and he can’t offer any special treatment. I’m not allowed to quote the original text because otherwise I’d be breaking the law. But the text was almost exactly like that. So I was annoyed and replied in the same friendly tone. My second email: Dear Sir or Madam, should the box be covered in any way by you so that it can no longer be removed without residue, we will rate you accordingly. Violation of § 434 BGB. As customers, we have the right to flawless goods; with shoes like these, that also includes the box. In the listing photos, it is in perfect condition, and I expect the same condition after delivery! If a seller tapes up the box of collectible sneakers in such a way that the original packaging is damaged, there is a material defect under § 434 BGB. For collectible items, the undamaged box is an essential part of the value. The dealer has the duty to hand over new goods undamaged. Collector item characteristics Signature series: The MB.01 series from PUMA Hoops enjoys cult status in the sneaker community. Unique look: The design combines the colors Green Glimmer, Pure Magenta and Hyperlink Blue with a spacey safari pattern. Limited release: Like many LaMelo releases, the shoe sold out quickly after its release on January 10, 2025, which increases collector value. Sincerely J.C.Becker. Ps . Should the shoes now happen to suffer damage, or otherwise no longer be available, I will... Here was SADLY THE END BECAUSE THERE WERE TOO MANY LETTERS. Unfortunately I didn’t notice, it was from 300…. By then I had calmed down, so I thought I’d better add something nice afterward. My third email: Addendum: I ask that you not take my response personally. But it should go without saying that one shouldn’t damage the box of shoes like these. Since I’ve just been through this whole thing elsewhere, I thought I’d write the seller just to be safe... HIS REPLY: We do not sell as a dealer, cannot comply with the request, to save money only shipping pouch. He didn’t even offer a collectible shoe, he has to cancel the purchase. That really made me explode! He calls himself (I think I’m not allowed to name him here) anyway, I think that’s it. So I’m paraphrasing the name as something like “UniverseOfSneakers” He sells all new shoes, all different sizes. After that response, I checked. And in fact it says private seller with him; I hadn’t even noticed that, and at first I assumed it was a company because of the name. By then another reply had come in, the purchase had just been canceled by him and the amount refunded. My third email: Then the usual, we have concluded a legally valid purchase contract. That he cannot unilaterally cancel the contract. And so on and so on… THE JOKE OF IT IS, I’M ASKING NOT TO TAPE THE BOX UP. He says there are no special exceptions and then says he always ships in a shipping pouch. THAT’S ALL I WANTED!!! I then naturally assume that his unbeatable low prices were probably too low in this case. 21.50 euros for new PUMA LaMelo Alien. And maybe the purchase cancellation suits him? Long story short. It goes back and forth, each side gets more worked up. In the end I list all the paragraphs he is violating. § 14 BGB § 3 para. 1, § 5 a para. 6 UWG § 5a UWG § 475 BGB § 312g in conjunction with § 355 BGB § 8 para. 1 UWG I had already dealt with that below at the asterisk. He twists himself into knots in his emails, acts like he’s super smart and keeps digging himself deeper and deeper into his own downfall. I say, you’re a dealer, you sell shoes, all new and for a while now, and always different sizes. No, he’s private, then yes, but he has a small business, I tell him he has to state that on eBay. He says he does, it’s all on file, including his tax number. Can’t be, why does it say private then? He doesn’t go any further into that. I tell him that I’ve had enough, I’m now reporting him for the numerous violations. He’s violating competition law, cheating his customers out of the statutory warranty and so on and so forth. His reply: he’s reporting me, I’ve already sold over 1,500 items. Little by little, the genius is amusing me; shame you can’t read everything he wrote. He constantly incriminates himself, and in writing too. He writes that I’m threatening him, I listed which laws he’s violating and told him to please register his shop officially on eBay. But OK, in his eyes that’s naturally a threat, I can understand that, even if he’s in the wrong. Where was I, ah yes, the thing about my over 1,500 sold items, which I actually only bought. I write to him that his threat was researched just as badly as everything else. I had also sent him this, for the sake of peace. I would have really liked to have gotten the nice sneakers after all; I’d almost forgotten about them.... Dear Sir or Madam, you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re selling. These shoes are collected. I have concluded a legally binding purchase contract under distance selling law. Should you not deliver, I will make a replacement purchase and charge you the additional costs. Should you not pay those, I will sue you. Including collection with the help of a bailiff. A shipping pouch is sufficient. I only asked you not to tape directly on the box, please. I don’t understand why you go on the offensive from the very beginning? I’m happy to send you another 3 euros so that you can take a good shipping pouch, or for your extra effort because you put the box into the pouch. From my ratings you can see that I’m always fair, I was just very annoyed by your first response. In any case, I will not accept a cancellation and will pursue it afterward with all legal means. Because even a private seller is bound by applicable law. Besides, clarifying this costs me nothing and will be very expensive for you. And I don’t want to argue. I hope you agree to an amicable solution. Sincerely, J.C.Becker. He then continued to threaten me, about my 1,500 sold items and that I myself would be bending the law. Under my few listings, I state that shipping risk lies solely with the buyer. THAT IS ANYWAY THE CURRENT LAW ACCORDING TO THE BGB. I only put it in the text again so there are no problems if once again one of the shipping provider’s employees has a bad day. I then sent him this as well. This exact addition is legally compliant. Yours lacks this addition. You are a small-business operator, (HE HIMSELF CLAIMED THAT IN HIS EMAIL) who appears as a private seller in order to bypass the statutory buyer protection. And your threats go nowhere with an honest citizen. As with all your other statements, the substantive context is missing here too. Because I have sold 64 items in 25 years. And not 1,500. And all this trouble because you’re upset about a purchase price that’s too low. And because you want to use my request for a bag or shipping pouch as a reason to cancel the purchase. Very sad. I still wish you all the best. Kind regards, J.C.Becker. So that was the gist of it, what do you think I should do now? Report him after all? What he’s doing actually violates a lot of paragraphs. On the other hand, of course many people are happy about cheap shoes, and I’d be taking that opportunity away from them. And this brazenness of the way he writes, his shamelessness, and his impudence really annoy me. I hope you’re not mad at me for going on like this with such a long ramble here and for wording it so casually…. Greetings from the North Sea coast, Jürgen. *The seller I MAY NOT NAME poses as an alleged private seller in order to bypass the warranty or right of withdrawal (so-called “disguised trader” or sham private sale), which is anti-competitive and contrary to consumer law. What matters here is not the eBay designation, but the legal definition of a trader under § 14 BGB and the prohibition of unfair competition under § 3 Abs. 1, § 5 a Abs. 6 UWG (concealing commercial identity / misleading by omission). Legal basis and paragraphs Trader status (§ 14 BGB): If the seller acts in the exercise of their commercial or self-employed professional activity, they are legally a trader – regardless of whether they tick the box for “private.” [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] Competition law & misleading practices (§ 5a UWG): Hiding behind a private seller identity is a misleading commercial practice by withholding essential information (consumers are deceived about their statutory rights). [ 1 ] Consumer sales (§ 475 BGB): A commercial seller cannot exclude warranty rights at all when selling new items to consumers, and only very limitedly for used items (reduced to one year, but not completely excluded) through terms and conditions or standard clauses. The classic exclusion (“excluding any warranty”) is invalid for traders. [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Right of withdrawal (§ 312g in conjunction with § 355 BGB): In a commercial distance-selling transaction, the buyer always has a 14-day right of withdrawal, which cannot simply be excluded with the phrase “private sale / no returns.” [ 1 , 2 , 3 ] Legal consequences for the company The alleged exclusion of liability is legally invalid. The buyer is entitled to full commercial warranty and withdrawal rights. The behavior is subject to a warning letter by competitors or associations under § 8 Abs. 1 UWG .
