The Instigator
alex_gortinsky
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jedi4
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points

Dark Side of Amazon

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Jedi4
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/3/2015 Category: News
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 77248
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

alex_gortinsky

Con

Does any company have the right not to pay to another company for the services/goods provided just based on company"s believes?
or
Amazon didn"t disburse funds as promised after mistakenly closing selling account

I would like to share with you the way huge Giant "amazon" treats their partners and companies that helped amazon to be one of the biggest selling platforms in the world. It is known to everybody that amazon has come up with a brilliant idea to become a selling platform for smaller companies to post their products on sale for amazon customers. Thanks to that amazon got a rapid boost up in variety of products offered that led to a huge increase of sales and recognition among US buyers. But when we look deeper in the company"s way of conducting their business it becomes shocking that nowadays such business practices may take place. For years USA was creating a set of business laws that guaranteed equal business rights for all companies, no matter of the size, starting capital, products or services new companies were bringing to the market. Just recently I came across the problem that one small company had with amazon. Amazon has built a huge trust among buyers, but did do that well with sellers of amazon platform. Recently we encountered the situation that amazon mistakenly closed the selling account and promised to disburse $96k owed in 90 days. Those funds were never disbursed, WHAT A SHOCK!!!
If I would say that amazon could make their own decision to take a product of another company, to sell it and never pay back that company, lots of people would probably tell me "are you crazy?" But this is really what happens nowadays that we feel has to be brought to the public. Amazon, as a huge business giant, follows their own judgment on making decisions to pay or not to pay the company that is selling on amazon. Law first "Law firm of Alex Gortinskiy" took a case to fight with amazon for money disbursement that amazon promised in writing to pay off in 90 days.
The company was selling on amazon for more than 2 years and then amazon removed selling privileges stating "We have removed your selling privileges, canceled your listings, and placed a temporary hold on any funds in your account. We took these actions because the items you are offering on our site may be counterfeit." Can you imagine the frustration of the small company to have their funds being frozen for 90 days with unreasonable explanation that doesn"t have any legal basis? After reading the participation agreement with amazon over and over again we realized that amazon has the full right to remove selling privileges because of any reason. It was their right to choose whom to let to sell on their platform and whom not to. The company tried to contact them several times trying to resolve the issue, but amazon was remaining silent. After 90 days past no funds were disbursed to account as amazon promised. After calling the lawyer Alex Gortinskiy and looking thru the agreements that amazon has, it turned out that amazon has several agreements, one that you need to sign when you are registering on amazon, another, more absurd, is on the website that probably nobody ever looks at. Who would imagine that the agreement contains a clause that amazon has the right to forfeit all the funds just upon their own judgment and believes. Amazon claims that agreement allows them to keep undisbursed funds without a court order if they determine that company was engaged in illegal activity. How is that possible nowadays? According to the Fifth amendment U.S constitution: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Isn"t it something we were going away for hundreds of years, isn"t it the situation that all business laws are fully restricting? Does any company have the right not to pay to another company for the services/goods provided just based on company believes? Does amazon have the right to have that rule in their agreement and to make it binding?
We would want to bring the attention of all damaged sellers who used to sell on amazon and to encourage fighting for their constitutional rights all the way to the end. The law should never permit such business ethics, and should set fair reimbursement for damages involved.
Jedi4

Pro

I accepted this debate because i saw dark side and thought it had to do with star wars or pink floyid. but it some BS smeer campaign against amazon.

You think the amazon partners are so clean and holy? Amazon partners are the same people that deal in drugs and sex slavery. The gaint amazon is a fence! Fences dont have to pay sh1t to their partners. and amazon gives them partners a contract. If they sign it and b1tch about monney then that's their fault not amazons. Con is propbaly some guy that believed he would become rich from trying to exploit amazon and got nothing. Now he tries to F*ck over amazon.


Did you even pass the BAR bro?

Also this motherf*cker plagerizied his argue. He should then be sentenced to hang from the neck till dead

http://www.srmti.com...




!


<a href=http://cdn.pichars.org...; />


Debate Round No. 1
alex_gortinsky

Con

alex_gortinsky forfeited this round.
Jedi4

Pro

Forfeited huh? Go laywer yourself bro
Debate Round No. 2
alex_gortinsky

Con

alex_gortinsky forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
First off. What are you trying to debate here?

Second, this is clearly copy and pasted text, either something you wrote or plagiarized. If plagiarized, you should have the decency to remove it, and rewrite your first round in a respectable way. If this isn't plagiarized, it still looks like it draws from about 5 different sources, so providing those sources would be extremely helpful, in not only giving your opponent the opportunity to examine them, but also in making your argument more credible.
Posted by Balacafa 2 years ago
Balacafa
Sources?
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Have you plagiarized your own work?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 2 years ago
Midnight1131
alex_gortinskyJedi4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
alex_gortinskyJedi4Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff