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".
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.
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.
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?
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."
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".