It’s not just eBay that sometimes goes overboard when it comes to getting rid of disagreeable sellers. The Yatego! platform does not always comply with the law when it comes to dealing with its members.
In this case, a seller had too high a cancellation rate in the opinion of the platform. Although the member’s shop had the highest turnover on the Yatego! platform and therefore the cancellations were in a completely normal ratio compared to the number of transactions, the numerous requests apparently meant too much work for the Yatego! employees.
Anstatt dem unliebsamen Mitglied ordnungsgemäß zu kündigen, sperrte Yatego! den vertraglich zugesicherten Zugang zur Plattform ohne Vorwarnung. Instead of properly cancelling the unwelcome member, Yatego! blocked the contractually guaranteed access to the platform without warning. The Regional Court of Constance (LG Konstanz, Beschluss v. 16.04.2009, Az. 9 O 34/09) has now decided by way of an interim injunction based on a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Brandenburg, which we also obtained, that it is not possible without a sufficient reason and ordered Yatego! to reactivate our client. Just so that there are no misunderstandings: Termination with notice is always possible, as is extraordinary termination with appropriate justification. Normally, nobody has anything against this. This is because in the former case, the contractual partner can prepare to look for other sales channels within the cancellation period and in the latter case, there is misconduct that justifies immediate termination of the contractual relationship. However, Yatego! apparently took too long in the first case and there was no basis for the other. The client simply did not fit into the business model.
Zum Verhalten Yategos muss man wissen, dass Yatego! anders als zum Beispiel eBay nicht an den Umsätzen seiner Mitglieder beteiligt ist und die Verkäufer lediglich eine monatliche Pauschale entrichten. Daher ist es verständlich, dass Yatego! nicht am wirtschaftlichen Erfolg seiner Mitglieder interessiert, sondern darauf bedacht ist, dass möglichst viele kleine Händler brav ihre monatlichen Beitrage zahlen. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist auch klar, dass Yatego! nicht möchte, dass der Wettbewerb auf der Plattform zu rauh wird, und sich dort alle lieb haben, damit sich dort viele kleine brave Händler tummeln können, die gerade genug verdienen, um ihr regelmäßges Scherflein abzugeben. An appeal by Yatego from 2007 against warning letters also fits into this small-minded picture:
‘The aim of Yatego is to create a ‘strong community’ of many individual sellers in order to survive together in today’s competitive environment. One of the most important points in our philosophy is the appropriate, friendly and objective communication within the community. In our opinion, the use of warnings without any other prior attempt at communication is contrary to our philosophy.’
And further:
‘Therefore, in each case of a warning letter, the Yatego community will check whether the provider issuing the warning letter will be excluded from the community.
Did you already know? It doesn’t always have to be a lawyer’s warning! Point out alleged misconduct to your competitor in a friendly manner and ask them to make the appropriate changes.’
I’m in tears. But as this case shows, spreading harmony and love is not enough for Yatego! Excessive sales are obviously also a problem. A business model that gives cause for concern. What would Jesus do? (la) The decision
Update vom 18.05.2009:Just for the sake of completeness, we would like to mention that Yatego! has not complied with the Regional Court’s order and has filed an appeal in the meantime.
Related posts
