For Sale/Trade/Want to buy thread

[kiptower]

BRW i think we have finally found the 1 person who voted us into the Eu in the first place

 

Directive's are not Law that is why the UK ignore the twadle they keep spouting

 

typical was the straight banana's saga then the market traders yet another slapping down of the EU

[perplexity]

The UK is Committed by the Treaty on European Union to implement EU Directives and does so; EU Consumer Protection Directives are implemented by UK Law, without exception.

 

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Community Infringements Specified UK Laws) Order 2003 identifies the UK legislation to give effect to the Directives, listed by Schedule 13 of the Act.

 

If you read the responses to European Union Consultations, representations from the OFT and the DTI for instance, you will find that they are consistently supportive.

[MrShed]

Perplexity.

 

If you wish to discuss this fine.

 

Can you please do it elsewhere?

[MrShed]

By the way this is not "electronic commerce", but effectively a classifieds section.

 

If you seriously class that as electronic commerce you are out of your tree.

 

Why are you insisting to ruin a simple suggestion thread?

 

Also, awaiting to hear the "hypocrisy".

 

PS - you had better run off to the EU and advise them of HUKD and AVForums. I'm sure that it will become top of their agenda.

[kiptower]

blimey Mr Shed do you think he would last more than 30 seconds on AVforums ,,

[MrShed]

Subtract about 29 seconds from that

[perplexity]

The Enterprise Act classifies, and I am not the author of the Act.

 

With regard to the enforcement of this, Section 210 defines that a business includes "any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge".

 

Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40)

 

It is not therefore up for discussion. We know that the enforcement of this sort of thing is poor, that is not disputed but if an enemy of the CAG were to have a go over this the terms of the Act settle the issue: CAG proposes to flout the consumer protection legislation!

 

It is for your benefit, not mine, that I post the warning.

[MrShed]

"in the course of a business"

 

So you think that someone putting a classified ad up is acting "in the course of a business"?

 

You are talking ****..

[MrShed]

Kindly dont post for my benefit, as its utter rubbish.

[cerberusalert]

perplexity do you actually know what the word 'Commerce' refers to?

 

A little clue;

 

"The activity embracing all forms of the purchase and sale of goods and services"

[ozzywizard]

Hey Shed, cutting out all the debate technicalities on this thread, I think it is a great idea and could be implemented within the same section of the CAGcycle. . . . I do think the idea of the 500+ posts is also a good protective idea, as demonstrated in this thread alone you never know who your dealing with new starters in the sense of them being genuine or being here to cause trouble, wolf in sheeps clothing etc. .

[MrShed]

Hey Shed, cutting out all the debate technicalities on this thread, I think it is a great idea and could be implemented within the same section of the CAGcycle. . . . I do think the idea of the 500+ posts is also a good protective idea, as demonstrated in this thread alone you never know who your dealing with new starters in the sense of them being genuine or being here to cause trouble, wolf in sheeps clothing etc. .

 

Thanks OW

 

It was the CAGcycle that prompted the thought I must admit!

[perplexity]

Do I think that someone putting a classified ad up is acting "in the course of a business"?

 

The proposal was to start a Trade/Want to Buy Thread, whereby a charge would be made.

 

A business includes "any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge". That is not my idea. Those are the terms of the Enterprise Act according to which a reference to a consumer protection directive must be construed.

[cerberusalert]

Are a newspaper's classified ads or the local supermarket/cornershop wanted and for sale boards in breach of current regulations? I think not, they are acting as a conduit for others.

[MrShed]

Do I think that someone putting a classified ad up is acting "in the course of a business"?

 

The proposal was to start a Trade/Want to Buy Thread, whereby a charge would be made.

 

A business includes "any undertaking in the course of which goods or services are supplied otherwise than free of charge". That is not my idea. Those are the terms of the Enterprise Act according to which a reference to a consumer protection directive must be construed.

 

A charge made by who?

 

This forum?

 

As I said - you have the wrong end of the stick.

[Bookworm]

Right, sorry to come in with a negative, but we did it and it failed dismally. Mr Shed, don't you remember when we had "Market Overt"? that was exactly the principle, and sadly didn't get us anywhere. AFAIK, Bankfodder deleted it on one of the forum's revamps precisely because it was just using bandwidth for nothing, but if enough people are interested, it's always worth trying to get it relaunched.

 

And as for the idea stemming from CAGcycle, well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery.

[MrShed]

Right, sorry to come in with a negative, but we did it and it failed dismally. Mr Shed, don't you remember when we had "Market Overt"? that was exactly the principle, and sadly didn't get us anywhere. AFAIK, Bankfodder deleted it on one of the forum's revamps precisely because it was just using bandwidth for nothing, but if enough people are interested, it's always worth trying to get it relaunched.

 

And as for the idea stemming from CAGcycle, well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery.

 

Thats fine Bookie - negative is fine if constructive

 

I dont remember it actually, perhaps before my time!

[perplexity]

A charge made by who?

 

This forum?

 

As I said - you have the wrong end of the stick.

 

 

What''s this about, if not a charge to be made?

 

 

Hello MrShed!

 

I have not thought what I am going to say next through fully, but it has occurred to me that it may be an option to consider a way to fund CAG via such inter-CAG member transactions.

 

For example, a percentage of every transaction goes to CAG, because CAG helps to manage the Sale/Trade/Want to Buy Thread, and people get to clear stuff out without being stuffed by eBay or PayPal fees.

 

.........

 

 

....

 

The cost would have to be set significantly lower than ebays fees for it then to be worthwhile, is my only concern.

 

.....

[MrShed]

This was NEVER about a charge to

be made by the forums.

 

My second quote, taken out of context, was in response to a quite seperate suggestion made by banker.

 

My original suggestion never incorporated the forum

charging for this whatsoever.

 

I repeat, once again, you have completely the wrong end of the stick and are spoiling this thread for no reason whatsoever.

[kiptower]

MrS dont reply to its ramblings

 

its clear it only wants to argue with every one , if it thinks something is wrong then it should contact admin

 

there are hundreds of forums that have a buy and sell and donations are made towards them re the sales and they have never fell in breach of the law.

 

the babbling keep refering to comercial activites,

 

maybe it would like to show its legal qualifications in commercial law,

 

its a matter of put up or shut up

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello MrShed!

 

Sadly, I think Perplexity is on a mission to win an argument, any argument will do, and he/she will create an argument where one did not exist, just to try and win it.

 

They are not about to let a trivial matter such as them having completely the wrong end of the stick, get in the way of a damned good argument.

 

I think we should just let Let the Wookie Win! Then, when they've won the argument here and gone off (suitably satisfied) to hassle someone else, we can get back to the original topic of this Thread!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[kiptower]

wookie ? maybe it should read "Perky Mk2"

[perplexity]

And there I was, naively assuming that the purpose of this forum was to further the interest of the average consumer!

 

 

Instead of boring us all to tears with the ad hominem, why not concede the point?

 

If a forum operates to facilitate the sale of goods online without declaring the name and the geographical location of the provider of the said service it is thus in breach of the law. Not only are the terms of the legislation indisputably clear about it, so is the public opinion. Buyers want to know who it is they are buying from and who runs the listings, this being the essential basis of any sort of buyer protection, because of the impossibility of enforcing anything except to know where to send a summons, nor would you improve your chance to sell by refusing to tell.

 

If you don't believe it, run a "do you buy online from anonymous sellers?" poll and see what comes of that.

[MrShed]

The purpose of this forum is certainly to further the interest of the average consumer.

 

However, is anything you have put above furthering the average consumer? Not really.

 

As I say - please feel free to go and report AVForums and HUKD to the relevant authorities.

[perplexity]

The authorities take the view that if you are as much of an idiot to think it a good idea to buy from an anonymous seller on a pirate web site and you come unstuck, it serves you right, and so do I.

 

It is better to fear for those who deserve the favour.