Legal Advice regarding Car Sale
Discussion
e-honda said:
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:
That is simply not true
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.
So is your premise is that: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.
- Original advert was on ebay
- The ebay advert forms binding terms for any subsequent transaction inside or outside the ebay platform
- The "advert" terms take precedence/override contract law, despite the contract have all of the requirements to be a contract that was conducted after the auction had finished
I'm struggling to follow your logic, I not trying to be obtuse. Could you try rewriting your argument?
e-honda said:
I was asked what me defence would be a few pages back.
This was it, so what is the counter argument
Even if eBay's T&Cs trumped UK law (They don't) here's where you fall down with your specious 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.
Up to the end of your argument you say that you would have said you didn't consider the offer to be binding. You're quite correct. Making the offer didn't constitute a binding contract. But when the op said he would accept a sum of money (the consideration) and the buyer agreed to this "We have a deal" the contract was formed.
So you can make any amount of offers you like on any amount of cars that you've seen advertised on any amount of platforms. There is no contract until an offer is accepted. If the offer was accepted subject to certain conditions e.g. a deposit that would be different. But in this case, the OP made no such request therefore a contract was made and it would be reasonable to expect it would've been executed. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge but you've been told by at least one lawyer and have the verdict of a judge to look at here. Fin.
Breadvan72 said:
It is true. This accords with principle and has been confirmed by a Judge.
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?
It has not really be confirmed by a judge because the op didn't bring up my point in his defence, the judge rightly or wrongly never got to consider the eBay terms because they weren't raised.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?
The advert was the consideration from eBay they provided a copy to the buyer
e-honda said:
It has not really be confirmed by a judge because the op didn't bring up my point in his defence, the judge rightly or wrongly never got to consider the eBay terms because they weren't raised.
The advert was the consideration from eBay they provided a copy to the buyer
That there was a contract has definitely been confirmed by a Judge. The advert was the consideration from eBay they provided a copy to the buyer
Your point is rubbish. The Judge would have dismissed it.
Consideration must move from the promisee. The parties have to provide consideration. Consideration cannot come from a third party such as eBay. Your suggestion that eBay providing a copy of the advert was consideration is frankly ludicrous.
DRFC1879 said:
Even if eBay's T&Cs trumped UK law (They don't) here's where you fall down with your specious argument:
Up to the end of your argument you say that you would have said you didn't consider the offer to be binding. You're quite correct. Making the offer didn't constitute a binding contract. But when the op said he would accept a sum of money (the consideration) and the buyer agreed to this "We have a deal" the contract was formed.
So you can make any amount of offers you like on any amount of cars that you've seen advertised on any amount of platforms. There is no contract until an offer is accepted. If the offer was accepted subject to certain conditions e.g. a deposit that would be different. But in this case, the OP made no such request therefore a contract was made and it would be reasonable to expect it would've been executed. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge but you've been told by at least one lawyer and have the verdict of a judge to look at here. Fin.
He has been told by two lawyers yet still he argues. He won't be persuaded, so there isn't much point in continuing to argue with him. Up to the end of your argument you say that you would have said you didn't consider the offer to be binding. You're quite correct. Making the offer didn't constitute a binding contract. But when the op said he would accept a sum of money (the consideration) and the buyer agreed to this "We have a deal" the contract was formed.
So you can make any amount of offers you like on any amount of cars that you've seen advertised on any amount of platforms. There is no contract until an offer is accepted. If the offer was accepted subject to certain conditions e.g. a deposit that would be different. But in this case, the OP made no such request therefore a contract was made and it would be reasonable to expect it would've been executed. I am definitely not a lawyer or a judge but you've been told by at least one lawyer and have the verdict of a judge to look at here. Fin.
Breadvan72 said:
That there was a contract has definitely been confirmed by a Judge.
Your point is rubbish. The Judge would have dismissed it.
Consideration must move from the promisee. The parties have to provide consideration. Consideration cannot come from a third party such as eBay. Your suggestion that eBay providing a copy of the advert was consideration is frankly ludicrous.
Not a 3rd party to that contractYour point is rubbish. The Judge would have dismissed it.
Consideration must move from the promisee. The parties have to provide consideration. Consideration cannot come from a third party such as eBay. Your suggestion that eBay providing a copy of the advert was consideration is frankly ludicrous.
It was the consideration for the agreement between the ebay and the buyer.
I'm not really sure it matters if the buyer is legally bound by ebays terms, just if it was reasonable for the seller to believe the buyer was complying with them, as stated in the advert.
I've updated it now to use less legal jargon that has shot myself in the foot
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 myselfwere bound by [had agreed to comply with the] 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
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:
No
Clearly. Multiple lawyers and a barrister have outlined why you are incorrect in your assessment. I can see why you might have gone down this rabbit hole, but there is also a point at which you need to recognise that your understanding of the law is incorrect.The law is fascinating; we can all aways learn more.
e-honda said:
e-honda said:
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.
Your argument has been countered several times, by several posters. It can’t be made much clearer.
If you truly don’t understand it after the explanations provided then give up - you are not clever enough to get it.
e-honda said:
I've spent a lot of money on cars on eBay classifieds over the last 10 years, I've never end up in court because I've always bought what I made an offer on.
But I have in a couple of cases made offers on cars I've not been 100% confidant on with the belief I could walk away at any point, I would not have done that if I believed eBay's t&C's are a farce.
I've not seen anything so far that is particularly convincing that they are.
IANAL But I have in a couple of cases made offers on cars I've not been 100% confidant on with the belief I could walk away at any point, I would not have done that if I believed eBay's t&C's are a farce.
I've not seen anything so far that is particularly convincing that they are.
Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
e-honda said:
It has not really be confirmed by a judge because the op didn't bring up my point in his defence, the judge rightly or wrongly never got to consider the eBay terms because they weren't raised.
The advert was the consideration from eBay they provided a copy to the buyer
1. The last bit makes literally no sense. The advert was the consideration from eBay they provided a copy to the buyer
2. Your argument isn’t based on the OP’s facts. More bluntly, if you’d done what the OP did then tried to argue what you want to argue, you’d have to lie about what you’d done in the first place.
vaud said:
Clearly. Multiple lawyers and a barrister have outlined why you are incorrect in your assessment. I can see why you might have gone down this rabbit hole, but there is also a point at which you need to recognise that your understanding of the law is incorrect.
The law is fascinating; we can all aways learn more.
Thanks i think you are the first person to acknowledge there is any sense in what i have been trying to say. When people are completely dismissive of what i am saying i tend to assume i am not getting my point across, so just keep going, i have certain conditions that make it pretty common for people not to understand me, especially in written communication.The law is fascinating; we can all aways learn more.
In truth i still don't get it.
If i am to believe everything I've been told on this thread then my take away is that if someone wants to sell something on the basis that no sale is agreed until the cash is in my hand, then they must say that to any buyer who makes an offer they must always state they accept 'in principle' or something to that effect.
Due to a quirk of UK contract law nothing they could write into the advert explaining it could mean you don't need to restate the in principle mantra to the buyer before accepting the offer.
My alternative understanding is that the problem is not that the issue is not that you can't write it into your advert, but due to a quirk of UK contract law it doesn't apply if it is in a separate page of terms and conditions.
Neither of these seem to make any sense to me, they seem like very exploitable situations and i don't understand why no one has been able to reference the particular quirks of law which make it so, or why ebay choose to put in terms that they know cannot have any effect.
honda_exige said:
IANAL
Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
This is printed on every single page.Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
Copyright © 1995-2021 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
There position seem to be you have agreed
e-honda said:
Thanks i think you are the first person to acknowledge there is any sense in what i have been trying to say. When people are completely dismissive of what i am saying i tend to assume i am not getting my point across, so just keep going, i have certain conditions that make it pretty common for people not to understand me, especially in written communication.
In truth i still don't get it.
If i am to believe everything I've been told on this thread then my take away is that if someone wants to sell something on the basis that no sale is agreed until the cash is in my hand, then they must say that to any buyer who makes an offer they must always state they accept 'in principle' or something to that effect.
Due to a quirk of UK contract law nothing they could write into the advert explaining it could mean you don't need to restate the in principle mantra to the buyer before accepting the offer.
My alternative understanding is that the problem is not that the issue is not that you can't write it into your advert, but due to a quirk of UK contract law it doesn't apply if it is in a separate page of terms and conditions.
Neither of these seem to make any sense to me, they seem like very exploitable situations and i don't understand why no one has been able to reference the particular quirks of law which make it so, or why ebay choose to put in terms that they know cannot have any effect.
You don't get it because you don't know anything about contract law, and I don't know why you continue to insist you have a point when you do not. In truth i still don't get it.
If i am to believe everything I've been told on this thread then my take away is that if someone wants to sell something on the basis that no sale is agreed until the cash is in my hand, then they must say that to any buyer who makes an offer they must always state they accept 'in principle' or something to that effect.
Due to a quirk of UK contract law nothing they could write into the advert explaining it could mean you don't need to restate the in principle mantra to the buyer before accepting the offer.
My alternative understanding is that the problem is not that the issue is not that you can't write it into your advert, but due to a quirk of UK contract law it doesn't apply if it is in a separate page of terms and conditions.
Neither of these seem to make any sense to me, they seem like very exploitable situations and i don't understand why no one has been able to reference the particular quirks of law which make it so, or why ebay choose to put in terms that they know cannot have any effect.
The point above is gibberish as well. It is not a quirk or a loophole that contracts are formed by offer and acceptance. The terms and conditions are entirely irrelevant to the contract between the buyer and the seller, so not sure why you keep going on about them. I am not sure what "quirk" you want people to reference. There is no such quirk.
The eBay user agreement relates to the relationship between you and eBay. Not you and some bloke you discussing selling your car to because he saw your eBay classified.
e-honda said:
honda_exige said:
IANAL
Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
This is printed on every single page.Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
Copyright © 1995-2021 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
There position seem to be you have agreed
e-honda said:
honda_exige said:
IANAL
Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
This is printed on every single page.Am I being stupid? I'd have thought it's pretty clear why ebays rules don't apply, the eBay website wasn't used to submit the offer. Therefore its outside eBay.
You are missing a crucial detail that to look at ads on eBay I don't have to agree to any terms at all. I flick through adverts without being signed into eBay, then call the seller as most have a mobile number listed.
Copyright © 1995-2021 eBay Inc. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of the eBay User Agreement and Privacy Policy.
There position seem to be you have agreed
I think you should just let it go.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2018-BMW-M2-COUPE-AUTOM...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff