Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
Muzzer79 said:
A contract is formed when an offer is made and accepted
The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
^^ What he said, and, in this specific case, the judge.The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
vaud said:
Muzzer79 said:
A contract is formed when an offer is made and accepted
The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
^^ What he said, and, in this specific case, the judge.The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
e-honda said:
vaud said:
Muzzer79 said:
A contract is formed when an offer is made and accepted
The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
^^ What he said, and, in this specific case, the judge.The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
Muzzer79 said:
e-honda said:
vaud said:
Muzzer79 said:
A contract is formed when an offer is made and accepted
The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
^^ What he said, and, in this specific case, the judge.The whole crux of this argument is that the OP accepted the offer. It wasn't just an unacknowledged bid.
eBay are just differentiating between classifieds (where an unacknowledged bid isn't binding) and auctions (where it is binding)
Basically, you can't force someone to buy a car that hasn't sold because they made an unacknowledged bid for it, like you can in an auction.
It does not mean that you can wriggle out of a formed agreement.
My issue is with the offer.
I've laid it out in a single post and so far had 2 responses against me as a person 0 responses to the substance of my post.
Here it is 1 more time
e-honda said:
I was asked what me defence would be a few pages back.
This was it, so what is the counter argument
This was it, so what is the counter argument
e-honda said:
I would included a copy of this page Selling with Classified Ads
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
e-honda said:
Here it is 1 more time
The sale and contract was formed outside of ebay. e-honda said:
I was asked what me defence would be a few pages back.
This was it, so what is the counter argument
This was it, so what is the counter argument
e-honda said:
I would included a copy of this page Selling with Classified Ads
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
Thus their terms are irrelevant which would make your defence moot. You can't rely on terms that aren't in force. The fact that it was advertised on ebay is, to the point of this contract, irrelevant.
As noted by Breadvan (the highly experienced barrister) and others, all aspects of a contract were formed, including acceptance.
e-honda said:
Here it is 1 more time
The part in bold only applies to the act of clicking on 'Make offer' on ebay's website. You cannot extend that to the discussions that took place afterwards.e-honda said:
I was asked what me defence would be a few pages back.
This was it, so what is the counter argument
This was it, so what is the counter argument
e-honda said:
I would included a copy of this page Selling with Classified Ads
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/selling/listings/listi...
A copy of the ebay user agreement
https://www.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/member-behavi...
I would have stated
The car was advertised for sale on ebay classifieds, a copy of this advert has been included in the claimants file.
The messages exchanged directly between the claimant and myself were normal for a sale of this type conducted using ebay, as explained in "Selling with Classified Ads".
By using ebay both the claimant and myself were bound by ebay's user agreement.
It was my belief that the buyer's offer was not binding, but expressed a buyer's serious interest in the item, in accordance with section 7 bullet point 3 of the ebay user agreement, and did not form the basis for a legal contract.
Reading those you can't actually sell a motor vehicle under e-bays Classified Ad format para 7 bullet 3.
- for motor vehicles and real estate (property) listed in the Classified Ad format, a bid or offer is not binding, but expresses a buyer's serious interest in the item;
I presume then that the Contract must be formed outside the e-bay process, i.e. by a conversation or exchange of texts . . . . . .
- for motor vehicles and real estate (property) listed in the Classified Ad format, a bid or offer is not binding, but expresses a buyer's serious interest in the item;
I presume then that the Contract must be formed outside the e-bay process, i.e. by a conversation or exchange of texts . . . . . .
ralphrj said:
The part in bold only applies to the act of clicking on 'Make offer' on ebay's website. You cannot extend that to the discussions that took place afterwards.
So your interpretation of the term referenced is that it means this?for motor vehicles and real estate (property) listed in the Classified Ad format [with buy it now option], a bid or offer [make thought the eBay platform] is not binding, but expresses a buyer's serious interest in the item;
I would argue that if they were meant to mean that, they would have said that, and and an offer made via WhatsApp, phone, text, email is an offer for the purpose of this term.
Which is why I referenced eBay's guidance on eBay classifieds where they don't even acknowledge the buy it now option and make it clear the normal process is via contact outside of eBay.
e-honda said:
ralphrj said:
The part in bold only applies to the act of clicking on 'Make offer' on ebay's website. You cannot extend that to the discussions that took place afterwards.
So your interpretation of the term referenced is that it means this?for motor vehicles and real estate (property) listed in the Classified Ad format [with buy it now option], a bid or offer [make thought the eBay platform] is not binding, but expresses a buyer's serious interest in the item;
I would argue that if they were meant to mean that, they would have said that, and and an offer made via WhatsApp, phone, text, email is an offer for the purpose of this term.
Which is why I referenced eBay's guidance on eBay classifieds where they don't even acknowledge the buy it now option and make it clear the normal process is via contact outside of eBay.
eBay said:
When you list an item through an eBay Classified Ad, you state a price, the buyer contacts you, and together you finalise the transaction outside of the eBay platform.
If the buyer contacts you and makes an offer, it's not binding. Whether it's via the eBay platform, Whatsapp or smoke signals.If the buyer contacts you, makes an offer (via whatever means) and you accept it - it's binding. A contract has been formed. This contract can only happen outside of eBay as eBay state that the transaction (defined as "an instance of buying or selling something") is outside of their platform.
As the contract is outside of their platform, their terms don't apply.
Muzzer79 said:
If the buyer contacts you and makes an offer, it's not binding. Whether it's via the eBay platform, Whatsapp or smoke signals.
If the buyer contacts you, makes an offer (via whatever means) and you accept it - it's binding. A contract has been formed. This contract can only happen outside of eBay as eBay state that the transaction (defined as "an instance of buying or selling something") is outside of their platform.
As the contract is outside of their platform, their terms don't apply.
That doesn't counter my point, go back to the post I've posted 3 times and make your counter argument.If the buyer contacts you, makes an offer (via whatever means) and you accept it - it's binding. A contract has been formed. This contract can only happen outside of eBay as eBay state that the transaction (defined as "an instance of buying or selling something") is outside of their platform.
As the contract is outside of their platform, their terms don't apply.
vaud said:
The sale and contract was formed outside of ebay.
Thus their terms are irrelevant which would make your defence moot. You can't rely on terms that aren't in force. The fact that it was advertised on ebay is, to the point of this contract, irrelevant.
As noted by Breadvan (the highly experienced barrister) and others, all aspects of a contract were formed, including acceptance.
That is simply not true Thus their terms are irrelevant which would make your defence moot. You can't rely on terms that aren't in force. The fact that it was advertised on ebay is, to the point of this contract, irrelevant.
As noted by Breadvan (the highly experienced barrister) and others, all aspects of a contract were formed, including acceptance.
eBay was the advertising platform and terms layed out in an advert can absolutely be in force.
If the seller puts free tin of custard with purchase on the advert, the buyer can reasonably expect a tin of custard to be included with the sale.
e-honda said:
Muzzer79 said:
If the buyer contacts you and makes an offer, it's not binding. Whether it's via the eBay platform, Whatsapp or smoke signals.
If the buyer contacts you, makes an offer (via whatever means) and you accept it - it's binding. A contract has been formed. This contract can only happen outside of eBay as eBay state that the transaction (defined as "an instance of buying or selling something") is outside of their platform.
As the contract is outside of their platform, their terms don't apply.
That doesn't counter my point, go back to the post I've posted 3 times and make your counter argument.If the buyer contacts you, makes an offer (via whatever means) and you accept it - it's binding. A contract has been formed. This contract can only happen outside of eBay as eBay state that the transaction (defined as "an instance of buying or selling something") is outside of their platform.
As the contract is outside of their platform, their terms don't apply.
The counter is that the offer is binding because it's been accepted and that the transaction is outside eBay terms because their own terms say that the transaction is seperate from them.
Muzzer79 said:
Of course it counters your point. Your point is that an offer is not binding, as per eBay terms and conditions
The counter is that the offer is binding because it's been accepted and that the transaction is outside eBay terms because their own terms say that the transaction is seperate from them.
To me you are off on a tangentThe counter is that the offer is binding because it's been accepted and that the transaction is outside eBay terms because their own terms say that the transaction is seperate from them.
Maybe your logic makes sense to someone who knows to make certain assumptions, but it doesn't to me, so please explain it to me better by showing me how it counters my argument.
e-honda said:
vaud said:
The sale and contract was formed outside of ebay.
Thus their terms are irrelevant which would make your defence moot. You can't rely on terms that aren't in force. The fact that it was advertised on ebay is, to the point of this contract, irrelevant.
As noted by Breadvan (the highly experienced barrister) and others, all aspects of a contract were formed, including acceptance.
That is simply not true Thus their terms are irrelevant which would make your defence moot. You can't rely on terms that aren't in force. The fact that it was advertised on ebay is, to the point of this contract, irrelevant.
As noted by Breadvan (the highly experienced barrister) and others, all aspects of a contract were formed, including acceptance.
eBay was the advertising platform and terms layed out in an advert can absolutely be in force.
If the seller puts free tin of custard with purchase on the advert, the buyer can reasonably expect a tin of custard to be included with the sale.
You have had the very simple position explained to you countless times. You seem to think that terms on the ebay website somehow bind the parties. You are arguing that there was no agreement because, you say, there was an agreement to be governed by those terms. A binding agreement not to agree! How was that agreement made? It wasn't. What's the consideration for it? There wasn't any. That absurd agreement exists in your imagination and nowhere else. Your view would, if correct, make it impossible for anyone ever to buy a car after responding to a car advert on eBay. Your view is daft.
One more try: The OP and the other party agreed the sale and purchase of the car for an agreed price. The OP broke the agreement. That is all there is to it. The Court made the ruling that was almost inevitable. The Judge was right. You are wrong.
You ent seen me, roight?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff