But, do you not find it odd that there's no reference to any eBay case in county court?
There's a few people claiming to have won,but it's very vague.


I know that an eBay classified add is not legally binding.
I'm fairly certain a buy-it-now isn't either. (It says/said so in eBay's terms somewhere I think).
So I question why an auction is.

Does a online click really carry the same weight as a signed contract?

Even eBay's rules say a car auction can be cancelled if there's something wrong with the car that wasn't declared in the advert.

So we have a strange situation where eBay's rules and the laws of the lands aren't quite in harmony.

So, it comes back to my original point.
If it was me I'd let it go to court and see what happened
If nothing else I might get my name in a law text book.

If that is the case, who would you expect the courts to side with?

Sorry for the double post....

But.
Even if it was a legal contract and the buyer breached it.
The seller can give a second chance offer to the next highest bidder and eBay may even refund the fees.

So the seller would not actually lose much at all.

In fact, I think eBay tries to settle things like this to avoid a legal test case.

I'm curious about whether the seller can dictate this as part of their terms -- by inserting a term of sale that contract isn't made until payment is received / goods collected / goods dispatched -- thus protecting themselves from breach in the event of stock-outs (but removing rights to sue the buyer).

I disagree with this point, Snowboy. There is no disharmony. All of the usual ingredients of an English law contract are present when X makes a winning bid to buy an item from Y. The site's terms, by which bidders and sellers agree to be bound, operate different principles for classified ads for cars, but absent such governing terms on which the parties treat with one another, they are (consumer protection aside, as we are dealing with private sales) out there in the common law contract jungle.

County Court cases are rarely reported, and in any event establish no precedent. I'm sorry to dampen you ardour for fame, but legal text books are not written on the basis of small claims skirmishes.

Just a quick question, apologies for quoting this from 10 pages ago, but I didn't see it asked in the subsequent discussions...

But is it a formally submitted form? or does it just look like a completed one of these? http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/...
In which case he probably hasn't submitted anything, but filled out the form to 'scare' you.

Some other documents/workflows on this page which might give you an idea of actually what you might expect to be getting in terms of notifications.
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetFor...

The court can compel a party to perform a contract of sale, but it rarely does so. A court will usually order specific performance of a contract to buy and sell land, but, in a contract to buy and sell a movable item such as a car, the primary remedy is damages. If the contract was for the sale of a rare and special car such as a pre war Bentley or a Ferrari California, the court might order specific performance. Some contracts, such as contracts of employment, are almost never subject to compulsory performance. Note I said almost never, not never.

Damages should place the injured party in the position that he or she would have been in had the contract been performed, subject to the effects of mitigation of loss.

There are some further principles about damages, but I am not writing a general essay on the law of contract. Those of you who are curious about that can read up on it online, but choose your websites with care, or buy a decent book offering an introduction to English law. It is no bad thing to have a basic understanding of the law of civil obligations in contract and in tort. Such an understanding formed part of a decent education until not so long ago. I recommend, however, that you avoid amateur law chat sites, and also take most of what is posted in this forum with a large pinch of salt unless it is posted by someone who has established their credibility as a reasonable professional or amateur lawyer. The net is awash with people posting nonsense about the law with apparent assurance. We have a few such here on this very thread (they may know who they are, or, sadly, perhaps they don't).

In the present case, if the seller could have sold the car to someone else for fifty pounds less than the OP agreed to pay, then the seller's loss is fifty pounds. The seller will not succeed in a claim for the full price of the car.

It's been filed online and sent from Northampton county court bulk centre.

As posted already, I'm going to make a cash offer and see if it is excepted, if not, I'll go to court.

As has been mentioned, this is more along the lines of a decency/moral issue.

The OP had questions to ask (but didn't).
He opted to bid carelessly without investing in checking the facts.
He won the auction and subsequently everything that comes with it by NOT CHECKING FIRST.

At this point he decided to actually consider if he wanted it or not by making checks he deemed essential to help inform him if the vehicle was up to his standards. Turns out that the OP decided that he didn't want it as these checks revealed that the vehicle had previously been recorded as a total loss.

This sort of information is widely available; for example I'm sure my mother read something in Womans Weekly about "how to buy a car" once. Even she would think of this.

If the seller had not listed the colour and the OP didn't ask only to bid and win the auction then ask only to find out it was red (and he didn't like red cars) then this is his own fault. Cat D status is no different to this example: It does not effect the usability of the vehicle in any way and there is no duty for any seller to disclose this. There is an obligation however for the seller to inform if asked (and if known) - and an opportunity for a bidder to make these checks. The buyer woefully omitted to make his checks when he had every opportunity to do so - or equally the option to simply not bid (which would have been the best course of action here).

The OP is fair game.

He should man up, suck it up and put it down to experience.

He should be prepared to buy the vehicle. It was a risk he decided to take and to be honest, he's an utter time waster.

Far too many buyers like this on eBay that ruin it for every one else.

G.