4 ms·

Maybe I'm not seeing it but I don't see a generic non-personal term, closest is this: > Prime members are not permitted to purchase products for the purpose of

Maybe I'm not seeing it but I don't see a generic non-personal term, closest is this: > Prime members are not permitted to purchase products for the purpose of resale, rental or to ship to their customers or potential customers using Prime benefits. Which seems to not apply here. I've never heard of a non-profit disallowing its members from using prime to benefit the charity, even if they're otherwise careful.

ikeboy 10y ago
He's accepting donations, and using those to buy food. That means he's reselling the food he buys in exchange for those donations. I don't think there's an exception if you're not making a profit from the reselling. "Using prime to benefit the charity" is different if nobody's giving them money to do so, because they aren't selling anything then. But buying something on your account when someone pays you is reselling.
- icebraining 10y ago
  He's accepting donations, and using those to buy food. That means he's reselling the food he buys in exchange for those donations. That's a really weird definition of "selling". I find it hard to believe that giving away stuff bought with donations is legally considered "selling" in most jurisdictions, including Canada.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Presumably, if he kept the items for himself, the person who donated would have a case against him. So he has a legal obligation to give the items to someone else, which was created when he received money from the donator. This seems clearly structured as a sale from Amazon to him, and a sale from him to the donator, with instructions to give it to charity. If it was his own money the case would be a bit murkier, perhaps.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      Clearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. Unless the donors are choosing the specific items to be purchased and the specific recipients, I don't see how it can be considered that they have bought anything.
      - ikeboy 10y ago
        >Clearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. I feel like having an actual charity changes this somewhat, in that it's expected that a charity might not spend all its donations right away, there's overhead, etc. As far as I can tell he's doing this all personally.

ikeboy 10y ago

He's accepting donations, and using those to buy food. That means he's reselling the food he buys in exchange for those donations. I don't think there's an exception if you're not making a profit from the reselling. "Using prime to benefit the charity" is different if nobody's giving them money to do so, because they aren't selling anything then. But buying something on your account when someone pays you is reselling.

icebraining 10y ago
He's accepting donations, and using those to buy food. That means he's reselling the food he buys in exchange for those donations. That's a really weird definition of "selling". I find it hard to believe that giving away stuff bought with donations is legally considered "selling" in most jurisdictions, including Canada.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Presumably, if he kept the items for himself, the person who donated would have a case against him. So he has a legal obligation to give the items to someone else, which was created when he received money from the donator. This seems clearly structured as a sale from Amazon to him, and a sale from him to the donator, with instructions to give it to charity. If it was his own money the case would be a bit murkier, perhaps.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Clearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. Unless the donors are choosing the specific items to be purchased and the specific recipients, I don't see how it can be considered that they have bought anything.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      >Clearly there's an obligation to use the funds for a specific purpose, but that doesn't mean the donor is buying that food, anymore than a donor to Doctors Without Borders is employing MDs. I feel like having an actual charity changes this somewhat, in that it's expected that a charity might not spend all its donations right away, there's overhead, etc. As far as I can tell he's doing this all personally.