Legal advice regarding regarding Ebay sale/purchase
Discussion
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
Gallen said:
He doesn't go into a lot of detail. The first case the chap obviously thought better of it and caved when he got the claim papers. But what about the other cases which went to court? Not one word of what happened there."I have used this now 4 times and won each and every time, only 1 went to court and the defence was chucked out."
The other 3 didn't go to court. They caved at the threat of court.
Snowboy said:
If that were the case I would expect that we would know about it.
Even though it's not legal precedent there would be records about it.
It's such a controversial subject that comes up time and again that such a case would have been front page news.
The question is (in my words);
Is winning an ebay auction considered a legally binding contract of sale?
If it is then all the legal stuff about oats is relevant.
I don't think it is a legally binding contract.
I think it's just the a step on the way to a contract.
Snowboy, I'm sorry to be firm but you really are being a bit silly. There are thousands of County Court cases each year. They are not online. They sink into obscurity. How would "we" know about such cases, unless we trawl through archives? No one not party to the case would give a monkeys about an eBay claim in a County Court. It would not be anything like front page news. Even though it's not legal precedent there would be records about it.
It's such a controversial subject that comes up time and again that such a case would have been front page news.
The question is (in my words);
Is winning an ebay auction considered a legally binding contract of sale?
If it is then all the legal stuff about oats is relevant.
I don't think it is a legally binding contract.
I think it's just the a step on the way to a contract.
You can think what you like but the well established principles of English law say that an eBay non classified ad car sale is a contract. What eBay thinks is not determinative, but it is notable that eBay treats the contract as binding. eBay may, pragmatically and for customer goodwill, help to unwind some sales, but that doesn't alter the legal position. The transaction has all of the ingredients of a contract.
We have been over this again and again, and your opinion is just as unsupported by legal principle now as it was several pages ago. Re arguing the same bad points won't change the answer. If you are so keen on this subject, why not go and read a reputable book on contract law?
10 Pence Short said:
Snowboy said:
I would suggest that the 'guide'above written by an eBay seller is total fabrication and lies.
As far as I know a court can not force someone to complete a purchase - they can just award damages for breach of contract.
The guide implies that the court made the buyers buy the item.
I call 'custard'.
This argument (or something similar ) has been rumbling along since eBay was first invented.
A court can order specific performance if the circumstances suit.As far as I know a court can not force someone to complete a purchase - they can just award damages for breach of contract.
The guide implies that the court made the buyers buy the item.
I call 'custard'.
This argument (or something similar ) has been rumbling along since eBay was first invented.
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
So pretty useless in terms of what might happen if such a case DID go to court.
Well, it is indeed possible that people with really strong cases cave at the first threat of court proceedings against them. But pretty improbable.
Yes, BV, I do read all the opinions and comments.
People have been discussing the legally binding question of eBay since eBay was invented. There's still no definitive answer.
I've read dozens of threads like this with opinions from plenty of learned people.
Secondly.
The specific question of whether finding a car is cat-d before finalising a sale is grounds to abandon the sale us still up for debate and won't be answered until it goes to court.
It's an interesting chat to amuse us; but we're not exactly going to be able to answer the questions with any hard facts.
People have been discussing the legally binding question of eBay since eBay was invented. There's still no definitive answer.
I've read dozens of threads like this with opinions from plenty of learned people.
Secondly.
The specific question of whether finding a car is cat-d before finalising a sale is grounds to abandon the sale us still up for debate and won't be answered until it goes to court.
It's an interesting chat to amuse us; but we're not exactly going to be able to answer the questions with any hard facts.
singlecoil said:
It seemed to me that the piece was written to show that taking people who didn't complete eBay purchases was a good idea, but didn't give any detail on what happened when such people arrived in court.
The clever ones don't let it get that far. The stupid ones do, and lose.
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
It seemed to me that the piece was written to show that taking people who didn't complete eBay purchases was a good idea, but didn't give any detail on what happened when such people arrived in court.
The clever ones don't let it get that far. The stupid ones do, and lose.
singlecoil said:
I daresay they lose, and I daresay some of the intelligent ones who choose to fight it out do too, but just what is it that they lose? The seller still has the item he was trying to sell, so what actually is he suing for, specific performance, listing fees (I think eBay returns those)? Has anyone ever been awarded that in an eBay case?
If the seller wants to move the article on, and the item is in a deliverable state, the seller may argue that property passed when the auction concluded. Then the seller sues for the unpaid price, relying on s 49 and s 18 of the SOGA and hands over the goods on receipt. Or the seller may try to argue that the intent was for property to pass on payment and rely on ss 50 and 17 of SOGA. As that has not occurred, the seller can retain the item and sue for damages and consequential losses and expenses. The damages would be the difference between the price that the reneging buyer agreed to and the lower price that the seller can actually sell the item for.
Nothing special about ebay.
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
I daresay they lose, and I daresay some of the intelligent ones who choose to fight it out do too, but just what is it that they lose? The seller still has the item he was trying to sell, so what actually is he suing for, specific performance, listing fees (I think eBay returns those)? Has anyone ever been awarded that in an eBay case?
If the seller wants to move the article on, and the item is in a deliverable state, the seller may argue that property passed when the auction concluded. Then the seller sues for the unpaid price, relying on s 49 and s 18 of the SOGA and hands over the goods on receipt. Or the seller may try to argue that the intent was for property to pass on payment and rely on ss 50 and 17 of SOGA. As that has not occurred, the seller can retain the item and sue for damages and consequential losses and expenses. The damages would be the difference between the price that the reneging buyer agreed to and the lower price that the seller can actually sell the item for.
Nothing special about ebay.
Breadvan72 said:
We have been over this again and again, and your opinion is just as unsupported by legal principle now as it was several pages ago. Re arguing the same bad points won't change the answer. If you are so keen on this subject, why not go and read a reputable book on contract law?
It's a common theme of some with strongly held views to reject all opinions, evidence etc that does not support their view. Such people tend to give equal if not greater weight to the opinions of other people who are equally uninformed just because they hold the same view. They will trot out the same arguments repeatedly despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Yes, indeed, such is the internet. Given how much fabulous info there is to be found online, it's a real shame that many people use the net to reinforce what they already think when they could use it to unlock vast frontiers of enquiry. The internet has the potential to make us all cleverer than any humans who have lived before us, but it seems to be making us dumber.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes, indeed, such is the internet. Given how much fabulous info there is to be found online, it's a real shame that many people use the net to reinforce what they already think when they could use it to unlock vast frontiers of enquiry. The internet has the potential to make us all cleverer than any humans who have lived before us, but it seems to be making us dumber.
Surely well informed and pragmatic people who advanced their thinking through constructive discussion would remove 90% of your business, BV...Chortle! It's fair to say that a lot of my business comes through people being stupid, but a fair chunk of it involves disputes between sensible people, as on some issues there are two reasonable points of view. I prefer the latter type of dispute. When people come to me and want to spend money being stupid, I should of course encourage them, but in common with most lawyers that I know (who sadly don't conform to the one dimensional cartoon villain version of the lawyer beloved of PH), I don't encourage them enough. Maybe I will say "screw that, give me your money" from now on, as that's what everyone thinks we all do anyway.
Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
Does anyone know if such a case has ever been successful?
Can you think of a good reason why a Judge sitting in an English Court would not apply these elementary principles of sales of goods law? I can't. Greg66 said:
singlecoil said:
Does anyone know if such a case has ever been successful?
Can you think of a good reason why a Judge sitting in an English Court would not apply these elementary principles of sales of goods law? I can't. The question is twofold; whether an eBay auction win is actually a sales contract or just part of a sales contract process.
And whether finding out the car is cat-d before handing over then money or receiving the goods is grounds to abort the sale.
The case law is based on the buyer wanting to back out of the sale after he received the goods.
In the eBay case no goods have been received.
I have been doing a bit of reading and there seems to be a lot of information about cancelling sales before they are complete.
Lots of cases that fall on both sides of the fence.
Most of the results seem to be based on the details provided by the seller and whether information was missing or misleading.
It's quite interesting.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff