Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Whatever_next

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Whatever_next

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. qa19 - There is no EULA on the CD cover (which is only a soft polythene sleeve) or the CD itself. Though I believe the newer CDs have something on the CD itself.
  2. qa19 This is a reply written by his wife when questioned about this problem. Hello, Thank you for your reply. Whenever we are alerted to any of our Cds being resold on E Bay I always write to advise the listers that they are in breach of not only our Terms and Conditions which are written on the covers, the seals and on the newest Cds the actual cds themselves but that they are in breach of E Bays own rules by listing software that they have not written. ( They do not own the Intellectual Property only the licence to use the software, not to sell it.) This is because the laws covering software are different from other items as it can be copied or down loaded and resold as new over and over again. If this is allowed to happen unpoliced by E Bay's VeRO department then not only would they become a market place for pirate copies but small software writers will be put out of business. I trust this explains why I wrote to you. Kind regards, Beverley Addams - robaddams-papercrafts
  3. Trading Standards assured me there was no law that could prevent me selling my CDs if I was the owner of a legitimately bought copy but there also is no law to say that Ebay cannot introduce whatever rules the management likes. Seems a bit strange to me but who am I to argue? As you say, this guy is killing the secondhand market. He does it by putting "the frighteners" on legitimate secondhand sellers. There are many well know Craft CDs being sold on Ebay with no trouble. He says he belongs to VeRo but I cannot see him on the list, though I do believe it is possible for him not to appear on it if he so requests. I might just email eBay and ask if they can tell me if he is a member. I rather suspect I shall be told that information is covered by the Data Protection Act. No win situation!
  4. End of Story: I had to fill in a couple of forms from Lloyds which, irritatingly, didn't really appear to exactly apply to my problem and therefore made them very difficult to complete. I returned these immediately (ie end of January 2010). I find today, on this month's Lloyds/TSB Master Card bill, that the entire amount in dispute was credited to my account on 11 February 2010. Many thanks, once again.
  5. Thanks for your reply but it is definitely "lapse". I have cut and pasted this from a document on will that I found on the internet. Beneficiaries that die before you If you leave a gift of money or a specific item to someone who dies before you, the gift may lapse and form part of the remainder of your estate (the 'residue'). This is referred to as 'the doctrine of lapse'. There are exceptions to the doctrine of lapse and the exception that applies most commonly in practice covers gifts to children of the testator. In terms of this exception, gifts to the deceased’s children won’t lapse where the child of the testator has also had children, who are still alive. The gift will pass to those children and be shared equally amongst them. If you leave a gift to a residuary beneficiary who dies before you, the gift will also pass according to the doctrine of lapse and its exceptions if you haven’t instructed otherwise in your Will. If a gift to a residuary beneficiary lapses, the rules of intestacy will determine how that gift is dealt with. The doctrine of lapse (and its exceptions) and the rules of intestacy can have undesirable consequences because the gift might be dealt with in a way that you wouldn’t have approved of. There are a number of ways of ensuring you control what happens to your gift. For example, you could provide in your Will that in instances where the doctrine of lapse would apply, the gift goes, in equal shares, to any children the beneficiary has, or to an alternate beneficiary that you have selected. In the will I am talking about, the gift is not residual, it is a legacy, ie the legatee was to receive and equal share of the estate not what was left after all the other conditions of the will were met. I think it is probably time for a solicitor to be called in. Thank you for your help.
  6. Thank you Lex. I did wonder whether this was perhaps not the forum in which to ask the question as it is not really a Consumer problem but it is such a helpful forum to belong to. If this type of question is not acceptable I am happy to delete my request.
  7. Apologies if I am in the wrong place. Could someone please explain the fine detail of Lapse of Doctrine. I am a beneficiary in a will of a cousin who divided his estate between a number of people. He had no children. Two of the beneficiaries predeceased the testator. I am aware of the term Lapse of Doctrine but am not quite sure how it applies in this circumstance. One of the deceased beneficiaries is definitely a relative but the other, as far as I can see is not actually a relative, even though she was always referred to as a "cousin". We have no record of this lady on the family tree and we do not know whether she had any descendants. As one of the executors I obviously want to do the right thing. I have researched "Lapse of Doctrine" as far as it is possible to do so on the web and it appears that if the deceased was a distant relative (of whom we knew nothing) that her descendants are entitled to inherit her legacy. Can anyone confirm this and, if we find she is not a blood relative, that her share of the will "lapses" and is distributed to the other legatees.
  8. Hi Buzby, you are right. It is not worth the hassle as they can be sold elsewhere; that is what I shall do. Quite frankly, I would have liked to have "poked eBay's eye" if I could have indicated chapter and verse that they were breaking the law but Trading Standards tell me that there actually is no law covering this problem even though they maintain I am entitled to be able to sell a genuine, owned, CD ROM to whomever I like.
  9. Thanks Grockle. I don't think US laws apply here and I had read tabberone's page. Feisty lady. In fact in the USA there is something called Exhaustion Rights but as far as I can determine it doesn't pertain in the UK, at least not in law, though historically there was quite a lot of discussion about it in the EC Treaty. As far as I can ascertain Vero is something Ebay introduced themselves. So, in effect, it is an "in house" ruling that has nothing to do with the law itself but it seems it is hardly worth the aggro getting into a fight over a few Craft CDs.
  10. Thank you hightail. If Trading Standards tell me that it is legal I am interested to know how eBay can use Vero to overcome this. I am not sure it can be both legal and illegal at the same time.
  11. I have a number of friends who have had items removed from sale because of "copyright" infringement. Each of them was selling a craft CD by someone who is called Robert Addams. He has joined Vero on eBay which he says disallows anyone to sell a genuine used CD that he sold to them. Apparently what he does is, if you don't end your listing immediately, complain to the Vero team who take down the item without even looking at it. I have several legitimate, original, Craft CD's by this guy that I would like to sell on as I no longer use them. I was so intrigued by the trouble my friends have had that I rang Trading Standards who tell me categorically that I can sell on anything if I legitimately bought it, it is original and not copied and that by him initially selling it to me he surrenders his right to "copyright". My query: What exactly is Vero, how does it work and is it legal in the UK? If Tradings Standards say I can sell my genuine, used CDs, can eBay/Vero override this fact?
  12. Donation made. I hope I shall not have to call on you again but, rest assured, if I run into legal problems this will be my first port of call. Many thanks.
  13. Sorry Zingy that I haven't got back to you. The problem being the companies mentioned on my bill don't actually exist as real websites. The original one draws a blank. All that I had to trace them with was a telephone number on my Access account. I am perfectly happy to tell you that it was a tooth whitening product and the [problem] is well known. It is set up in such a way that once you go past the opening screen and get to fill in you card details to pay for p&p you cannot retrace your footsteps if you wish to not order the goods. I am usually very wary when I purchase on the internet and have never had trouble before. The way this [problem] is set up is very clever and very difficult from which to extract oneself . I did not feel the product was important to mention and I shall be even more careful in future. I think the principle of paying for items and services not received and recouping one's money was the important aspect as this will apply to any number of companies and products. I hope this helps.
  14. I have today received a letter from Lloyds TSB asking me to fill in a form itemising the services and products that have not been received and stating:- "AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE THE DECLARATION FORM BACK FROM YOU, YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE CREDITED AND THE CHARGE RETURNED TO THE RETAILER" I am not shouting but I need to put this in capitals for anyone else who is in the same situation. This confirm that Lloyds TSB are part and parcel of the Chargeback system and they obviously need to be confronted before one is told this is an option. Credit Card Law Section 75 would not have applied to my case because no item was over £100 but Chargeback most definitely does. I have to say, I am not aggressive and I found it very hard to say that I would take them to court over this but it certainly did make someone sit up and take notice. So thank you, thank you, thank you. I shall be making a donation to this very worthy website.
×
×
  • Create New...