EBAY - Item wrongly advertised as in good working order - can I claim money back?

[PriorityOne]

Oh for God's sake.... just read the thread!

 

Bypass the jargon and go for the chargeback through Paypal.... You don't have to entertain this chap on your property and it'll serve no purpose to have him "look" at the item because his opinion will most likely be biased in his own favour.

[noomill060]

perp is a nutter.

 

They got tired of his nonsense on the Ebay forums and now just ignore him/her.

 

I would advise Caggers to do the same. You cannot reason with an idiot.

[perplexity]

Nobody said that in the absence of the eBay User Agreement there can be no contract, so why the straw man argument ?

 

The opposite could be true, in certain cases, with the sale of real estate for instance, there is no enforceable contract because the User Agreement says so.

 

The Rules of consideration are explained here, for instance:

 

Contract consideration

 

It should not be so difficult to understand that it's a benefit to eBay that the sellers expect the buyers to pay when they bid. Why else was eBay so remarkably reluctant to admit that the right to cancel exists?

 

In simple ordinary terms, if you'd rather not be bothered to argue with a seller the option exists to say OK then, give me the money back and let's forget it, or if you've not yet paid, to cancel a transaction.

 

eBay provides for this by way of the mutual cancellation facility and the law provides for this by way of the Distance Selling Regulations which establish the duty to refund.

 

[PriorityOne]

 

eBay provides for this by way of the mutual cancellation facility and the law provides for this by way of the Distance Selling Regulations which establish the duty to refund.

 

 

Or in simple words.... a chargeback

[perplexity]

Or in simple words.... a chargeback

 

No. It should be easier than that by a long chalk.

 

To start with, a mutual cancellation may just as well take place if a payment was not yet made.

 

Whether or not a payment was made, eBay's mutual cancellation facility assumes that a buyer and a seller are happy to agree to cancel, which a "chargeback" would not, and the same goes for the Distance Selling Regulations which expect that a supplier is content to fulfil his statutory duty.

 

A refund would happen by way of Paypal's usual refund facility, or a bank transfer volunteered by the seller.

 

[PriorityOne]

OP has paid... and received the item....

[perplexity]

I make the point because it is often supposed that a buyer is entitled to cancel a contract of sale, concluded when a payment is made, but not the win of an item on eBay, which is bound by the terms of the User Agreement to the effect that it must be paid for.

 

However, this was already tested, when a seller sued a buyer who refused to pay, and the seller lost, the inference of which is that a buyer is indeed entitled to cancel the obligation established by the User Agreement.

 

[Kraken1]

Nobody said that in the absence of the ebay User Agreement there can be no contract, so why the straw man argument?

It appeared to me, trying to translate your rambles, that you were saying this. If not, I apologise. Silly of me to think you'd suggest something daft.

 

Just to be clear - what are you saying? In plain English, so we can all follow? What is your argument or advice?

 

It appears that you are saying that:

 

There is a valid contract between the buyer and ebay; and

 

Because of this a buyer can cancel a contract with a seller under the DSRs

 

You have also said:

Buyers cannot:

Commit to buying an item (either by winning the item or buying an item in a Buy It Now listing) without paying.

That's a consideration for eBay that the member grants in return for the service, which has to be cancelled or there is no right to cancel any transaction on eBay.

What does this mean? I read it to mean that a buyers promise to purchase something from a seller acts as consideration to put in place a contract between ebay and the buyer? In order to cancel a transaction a buyer needs to cancel this contract?

 

Can there be a valid contract between a buyer and a seller, via ebay, irrespective of the role of ebay? For example, if I agree to buy a wotsit through ebay through bidding sucessfully, but before I pay and before the goods are dispatched, Ebay shuts up shop (for what ever reason, forget to pay the electric bill or whathaveyou). Is there a valid contract between me and the seller?

 

Or, is it the case that the terms of the ebay user agreement are incorporated into the contract I agree with the seller and there is no second contract with ebay itself?

 

The opposite could be true, in certain cases, with the sale of real estate for instance, there is no enforceable contract because the User Agreement says so.

Really? I thought that was to do with the Law of Property Act. Go figure. Probably because the LPA is just soooo old. Bound to be dusty. Who's really bothered about that?

 

The Rules of consideration are explained here, for instance:

Contract consideration

Nice summary. No relevance whatsoever to your posts and argument though. You've still not explained where the consideration actually is, unless I suppose you address my query above.

 

It should not be so difficult to understand that it's a benefit to eBay that the sellers expect the buyers to pay when they bid. Why else was eBay so remarkably reluctant to admit that the right to cancel exists?

Cos it don't where seller is not a business. If it helps I can try and dress that up in psuedo legalise with a bit of latin? Use some phrases like 'aforementioned' or 'notwithstanding the foregoing'? Perhaps throw in some pointless references to irrelevant statutes and some circular reasoning? How about something like 'and you'll note that s24(a) (ii) of part III of the Prices Act 1974 affirms this position*'.

 

In simple ordinary terms, if you'd rather not be bothered to argue with a seller the option exists to say OK then, give me the money back and let's forget it, or if you've not yet paid, to cancel a transaction.

eBay provides for this by way of the mutual cancellation facility and the law provides for this by way of the Distance Selling Regulations which establish the duty to refund.

Keep digging my perplexed friend. Ebay says the DSRs only apply to business sellers. The DSRs say they only apply to business sellers. The BERR guidance says they only apply to business sellers. Everyone says they only apply to business sellers. 'Cept you.

 

 

 

 

* this is not true. Doubt such sections of this Act even exist... I made it all up for entertainment value.

[perplexity]

We had already been through this.

 

The UK Distance Regulations (which is not an Act of Parliament) apply to a distance contract and the seller is not a distance contract.

 

To sort it out I suggest to proceed, point by point, to seek agreement.

 

To start with, the OFT guidance (which is only a general guide and you should not regard it as a statement of how the law applies in every situation) advises that this depends on specific circumstances, for example, the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller, which I completely concur with, and so does (10) of the EU Directive 97/7/EC

 

Do we concur with that or disagree with the OFT and the Community Directive?

 

[PriorityOne]

.... poor OP. She probably wished she never asked....

[Kraken1]

To sort it out I suggest to proceed, point by point, to seek agreement.

 

Agreed, but logically we need to agree the point we are debating before anything else:

 

I submit that the DSRs only apply where the seller is acting in a professional capacity, they do not apply to a consumer selling to a consumer.

 

What is your argument - that the DSRs apply to all distance contracts?

[perplexity]

Do we agree that the suppliers of the eBay service, (the various eBay web sites) act in their commercial or professional capacity, when they supply the eBay service, bound by the User Agreement which the application of the Regulations depends upon, the contract common to all the members it also binds, whereby any person who, in the contract to which these Regulations apply, is acting in his commercial or professional capacity, the capacity provided by the User Agreement, the capacity to supply goods, when that is what he does, as an eBay seller?

 

If you do not agree with that, please deal with it as would be expected before a judge. It is helping nobody to call it a lot of tosh.

 

I am attempting to define what exactly the relationship is, between the website provider and the seller, in terms of the Regulations.

 

I am not saying that DSRs apply to all distance contracts. They don't. Section 5. defines the exceptions.

 

If you think it possible prove that the Regulations do not apply to consumers selling to consumers you'd better tell eBay, because they appear to accept that the Regulations apply to eBay sellers who consume the eBay service in order to sell to consumers.

 

Edited April 9, 2010 by perplexity
s.5 comment added

[noomill060]

.....but Ebay doesnt sell anything in the way of tangible stuff, just the service it provides to the seller.

 

What Ebay may happen to believe and gob off about, doesnt affect what the DSRs actually state.

[perplexity]

The Distance Selling Regulations apply to distance contract, which is any contract concerning goods or services concluded between suppliers and consumers under an organised distance sales or service provision scheme.

 

N.B. "concerning"; it doesn't have to be a contract of sale, nor even a contract to supply a service, so long as this is the concern of the contract, under an organised sales or service provision scheme.

 

 

What ebay may happen to believe and gob off about, does not indeed affect what the DSRs actually state. Just because they lead the buyers to believe that the Regulations would not apply, it doesn't mean they don't. That was already demonstrated by the High Court precedent in Germany.

 

I am glad we agree on that. To the extent that a user agreement may purport to except a seller from a duty established by the Regulations, that would be overruled by section 25.

 

[Kraken1]

If you think it possible prove that the Regulations do not apply to consumers selling to consumers you'd better tell eBay, because they appear to accept that the Regulations apply to eBay sellers who consume the eBay service in order to sell to consumers.

 

As an aside, ebay don't - see here eBay UK: Safety Centre: Know Your Rights

 

What ebay may happen to believe and gob off about, does not indeed affect what the DSRs actually state. Just because they lead the buyers to believe that the Regulations would not apply, it doesn't mean they don't. That was already demonstrated by the High Court precedent in German

 

Agreed. But I doubt the value of a german high court case as decent uk precedent. Perhaps you could say where the case was reported?

 

But that is me getting ahead of myself.

 

Firstly, for the love of god, please spend a little bit more time on your drafting. Your posts are almost non-sensical and I think most of the 'perpy is a prat' stuff you are seeing is because no-one understands what you are trying to say. You might have some good points; as it is it reads like someone who has swallowed a few legal terms, added google and punted out the remains.

 

So, moving on... if we are going to do this, we do it right.

 

Remember the legal reasoning that was drilled into you those first few weeks of your LLB (if I'm right about that). You take the law first, then confirm the facts and apply the law to the facts. LLB 101. Don't jump stages or you get confused and make errors. Whether ebay is or is not a business, and whether there is or is not a contract to cancel is for later. Who is a consumer and who is a business is for later. You cannot debate the facts or circumstances without ascertaining the law, because you don't know what facts are relevant.

 

For the time being, we need to agree on the law, and then we apply it to the facts. If that approach is good enough for denning et al, it is good enough for me.

 

So. We have distinct parts of the law we are debating, the DSRs where they apply and basic contract and where it might be relevant.

 

DSRs

 

The DSRs grant a consumer right. They form one part of the vaunted 'statutory rights'.

 

Firstly, the regs apply

 

subject to regulation 6, to distance contracts other than excepted contracts

 

Excepted contracts are given in reg 5, and as is relevant here state:

 

5. - (1) The following are excepted contracts, namely any contract -

(...)

(f) concluded at an auction.

 

The dsrs do not therefore apply to any of the contracts in reg 5.

 

Reg 6 just gives some situations where only part of the regs apply. it isn't relevant here.

 

the regs then go on to place certain obligations on 'suppliers' and give certain rights to 'consumers' where they have entered into a distance contract. The regs define these terms:

 

"business" includes a trade or profession;

 

"consumer" means any natural person who, in contracts to which these Regulations apply, is acting for purposes which are outside his business;

 

"distance contract" means any contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service provision scheme run by the supplier who, for the purpose of the contract, makes exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the moment at which the contract is concluded;

 

"supplier" means any person who, in contracts to which these Regulations apply, is acting in his commercial or professional capacity

 

The most important right really, for this debate is found in reg 10:

 

Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulations 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier... the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract.

 

Reg 13 gives exceptions.

 

There are other bits that provide the mechanisms and time frames to cancel.

 

So, in summary,

 

The DSRS mean that

 

Where a supplier agrees a distance contract with a consumer then the consumer can cancel this.

 

'Contract' isn't defined, but the generally accepted definition of a contract is an agreement between two or more people where there is offer, acceptance, consideration, the intention to be legally bound and the capacity to contract.

 

 

So - with just stating the law - would you agree with the above?

[perplexity]

In order to consider the law, I begin by examining the Distance Selling Directive which the UK Regulations implement, as per the hierarchy described by (10) of the Directive:

 

(10) Whereas the same transaction comprising successive operations or a series of separate operations over a period of time may give rise to different legal descriptions depending on the law of the Member States; whereas the provisions of this Directive cannot be applied differently according to the law of the Member States, subject to their recourse to Article 14; whereas, to that end, there is therefore reason to consider that there must at least be compliance with the provisions of this Directive at the time of the first of a series of successive operations or the first of a series of separate operations over a period of time which may be considered as forming a whole, whether that operation or series of operations are the subject of a single contract or successive, separate contracts;

(my bold)

 

 

The purpose was to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States, in order to gradually consolidate the market, for consumers to access the goods and services of another Member State on the same terms.

 

Edited April 9, 2010 by perplexity
purpose added

[Kraken1]

irrespective of whether you are looking at the directive or the regs, do you agree with my summary of the law?

 

If it helps I can rephrase the above in the terms of the directive? This might be familiar:

 

Firstly, point of the directive is to:

 

The object of this Directive is to approximate the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning distance contracts between consumers and suppliers.

 

art 3

this directive shall not apply to contracts...concluded at an auction.

 

art 4 also gives some situations where only part of the regs apply. it isn't relevant here.

 

the directive then goes on to place certain obligations on 'suppliers' and give certain rights to 'consumers' where they have entered into a distance contract. The directive defines these terms:

 

1) 'distance contract` means any contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer under an organized distance sales or service-provision scheme run by the supplier, who, for the purpose of the contract, makes exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the moment at which the contract is concluded;

 

(2) 'consumer` means any natural person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession;

 

(3) 'supplier` means any natural or legal person who, in contracts covered by this Directive, is acting in his commercial or professional capacity;

 

The most important right really, for this debate is found in article 6:

 

For any distance contract the consumer shall have a period of at least seven working days in which to withdraw from the contract without penalty and without giving any reason. The only charge that may be made to the consumer because of the exercise of his right of withdrawal is the direct cost of returning the goods

.

There are other bits that provide the mechanisms and time frames to cancel.

 

So, the directive means that:

 

Where a supplier agrees a distance contract with a consumer then the consumer can cancel this.

 

As for 'Contract', again this isn't defined, but the generally accepted definition of a contract is an agreement between two or more people where there is offer, acceptance, consideration, the intention to be legally bound and the capacity to contract.

 

 

So - with just stating the law - would you agree with the above?

[perplexity]

I am considering the auction exception.

 

If eBay is an auction then it follows that the Regulations do not apply to the User Agreement; eBay's Rules for Buyers would then prevail to the effect that there is no right to cancel an eBay transaction:

 

Buyers cannot:

Commit to buying an item (either by winning the item or buying an item in a Buy It Now listing) without paying.

If eBay is an auction then the User Agreement and any other contract concluded at the auction is excepted, so the terms of the Regulations need not be bothered with at all.

 

Seeing that I am none the less invited to move on to the rest of it, are we therefore agreed that eBay is not an auction, so a contract concluded on eBay is not a contract concluded at an auction?

 

 

I am willing to move on to the rest of it, on a provisional basis, for the sake of the argument, if the auction issue is not yet settled, but would rather be clear about it.

 

:?

 

P.S.

 

As to what does or does not amount to a contract, I am not supposing that a User Agreement or any other contract must be considered as a whole. To the contrary, it is impossible to apply the rules except to consider parts of a contract as separate entities.

 

What I am not content about is construing that a term of a written agreement, or the right to cancel the term, would apply to some who subscribe to an agreement but not to others, notwithstanding a general reference, to "buyers" for instance.

 

Edited April 10, 2010 by perplexity
P.S.

[Kraken1]

re: is ebay an auction under the dsrs? (I'm going to continue to cite the dsrs rather than the regs because there is no difference in their content and the dsrs are what a claimant would cite; using eu law in the small claims track is full of problems).

 

Quick answer - I'm not sure. I think it depends on the actual sale as to whether it really is an auction and excluded. Ebay acts as both an auctioneer and/or an advertiser. Buy it now items I think are simple sales. 'Proper' listings may well be deemed real auctions.

 

So, for the purposes of that exemption, certain sales through ebay may be subject to the dsrs, subject to any other requirements (for example buying as a consumer, selling as a business)

 

Either way, this means that a buyer purchasing from another consumer cannot cancel a contract using the dsrs.

 

A buyer purchasing from a business using ebay probably can cancel under the dsrs, providing that it was not an auction sale (for eg it was a buy it now transaction).

 

If a buyer had a contract with ebay, and was acting as a consumer, then he might be able to cancel, but buyers are not going to have a contract with ebay; there is a user agreement only and this is not a contract. The terms of the user agreement might become incorporated into a contract between a buyer and seller, but there is still only the one contract. A similar situation would be a buyers relationship with autotrader when they are buying a car.

 

I don't think the ebay 'rules for buyers' have any contractual or legal force, they are just an explanation of the normal legal position. Contractually, if you make an offer which is accepted, and providing that there is consideration and capacity, then there is a legally binding contract. For this reason the law has stepped in to provide consumers with the right to cancel certain types of contracts in certain situations; some credit contracts, contracts concluded in the home etc. These are statutory exemptions from the standard common law position.

 

For sellers, they will have a contract with ebay; ebay will be acting as their advertiser and/or auctioneer.

[perplexity]

I refer to (10) of the EU Directive because it solves the problem how to apply the Regulations to an eBay transaction, realising that a transaction is a series of operations, the subject of successive, separate contracts.

 

A contract is concluded when a buyer subscribes to the User Agreement; another contract is concluded when a bid is placed; another contract is concluded when an listing ends; another contract is concluded when a buyer pays a seller, and any number of agreements may be concluded in the mean time, over the cost of postage, sending an item abroad or whatever else, and all these agreements affect the outcome of a transaction

 

Ergo, a buyer does have a contract with eBay with regard to a particular transaction. When a buyer places a bid on an eBay auction that is the conclusion of a contract with eBay: In return for the buyer's promise to honour the win of an item, eBay promises to process the bid and any subsequent complaint about the transaction.

 

The contract may then be cancelled, as need be, by the mutual cancellation facility. With regard to s.13 of the Distance Selling Regulations it is thus implied that "the parties have agreed otherwise", that eBay's commitment to administrate the auction may be cancelled albeit that the service began with the bid.

 

When a seller sues a buyer who refuses to pay it is the terms of the User Agreement that he would thus enforce, not the terms of his auction description, and the same applies when a buyer sues. A certain Uri Geller wanted to prosecute a seller who refused to sell and that was thrown out because of eBay's non binding bid policy for real estate and motor vehicles.

 

There is a relevant difference in the content of the UK Regulations and the EU Directive. The terms of s.17 are not cloned from the Directive, the terms about the return of goods etcetera. Member states treat the return of goods in different ways. An infringement with regard to that would therefore be a domestic infringement if not for s.212(2) of the Enterprise Act.

 

What then does a buyer cancel, exactly, when he cancels? The answer to that would have to be whatever he wants to, so long as the Regulations fit.

 

A buyer may cancel a bid, perhaps, or cancel the obligation to pay the seller, perhaps, or cancel the contract of sale when that is complete, perhaps.

 

[Kraken1]

so, to be clear, we need to show that there was a contract and you are suggesting that:

 

- a contract is concluded when a buyer subscribes to the User Agreement;

- another contract is concluded when a bid is placed;

- another contract is concluded when an listing ends;

- another contract is concluded when a buyer pays a seller; and

- any number of agreements may be concluded in the mean time, over the cost of postage, sending an item abroad or whatever else, and all these agreements affect the outcome of a transaction

 

I don't agree that these are separate contracts. A contract needs consideration and I don't see where this lies in the above examples. I would argue that the actual legal framework is:

 

a contract is concluded when a buyer subscribes to the User Agreement - I don't agree that this is a contract, there is no consideration. Similar situations would be agreeing to the terms of use of any website, this alone does not mean that a contract exists.

 

another contract is concluded when a bid is placed - this is an offer, part of the contract with the buyer (boots cash chemists)

 

another contract is concluded when an listing ends - this is not a contract, there is no offer or consideration and perhaps no acceptance - silence cannot be taken to be consent to a contract (felthouse v bindley) and this is not a unilateral contract (carbolic smokeball).

 

another contract is concluded when a buyer pays a seller - this is the consideration for the contract with the buyer.

 

any number of agreements may be concluded in the mean time, over the cost of postage, sending an item abroad or whatever else, and all these agreements affect the outcome of a transaction - these again are not contracts, they are terms of the contract between the buyer and seller.

 

So, a buyer does not have a contract with ebay, in the same way that a buyer does not have a contract with a local paper when he buys something from the small adds. the only contract is that between the buyer and the seller. The same applies to normal auctions. If a buyer has an issue at an auction he would normally be forced to sue in tort, and there have been a few cases along these lines. Usually an argument based in negligence.

 

As for the Uri Gellar case, was this not in the US? If so, not good. US law or precedent does not apply in the UK. In any event, as UK law states that sales of property must be by deed (LPA 1925) the result would probably have been the same.

[CRH71]

I've been following this thread with a bit of interest, as it has raised a very interesting question.

 

Reading through it, though, does raise a few points:

 

1. Kraken1/Perplexity - although I understand the gist and basis of your debate, personally I question the relevance of the debate to the OP's question, and I also question whether this particular thread is the appropriate medium to continue the debate on the DSRs and Law? May I respectfully suggest that you two start another thread on that subject and debate to your heart's content on there? I'll gladly subscribe to it, just out of interest!

 

2. The OP has suggested that the machine was looked at by some form of workshop, whom they would have assumed would know what they're talking about. The advice given seems strange to me "the pistons were all broken". For my sins, many years ago, I used to work for a hire company, and a lot of the tools we hired out were powered by chainsaw engines - obviously chainsaws, but petrol disc cutters, leaf blowers, etc.. Every single one of these engines, regardless of capacity, was the same type - a single cylinder, air-cooled, two-stroke engine. One cylinder, one piston. For your OH to be told that "pistons" (plural) were "all broken" would immediately make me question the person who inspected the machine's competency. Removal of the covers over the machine would have clearly shown one cylinder - indeed, just visually inspecting it without removing covers would have confirmed the same, as there would only have been one spark plug present in the engine, and therefore could only be one cylinder!

 

3. The original seller strikes me, from your description, as one who would use a chainsaw as his (or her) main tool of trade, especially if they're in the Tree Surgery business. These machines have an engine, and engines do wear after a lot of use, which it would be extremely fair to say that a tree surgeon's chainsaw would definitely have had! For this seller to sell a chainsaw off, given his trade, it would be assumed that this was one that was nearing the end of it's working/useful life to the seller, but which may have sufficient life left in it to satisfy, say, people like me who would only use it once in the proverbial blue moon to cut some fence posts!

 

4. In the context of the advertisement, "good working order" could mean, in very simple terms "starts, runs and cuts a piece of wood". As long as it did those three things, then the seller could argue "good working order" at the point of despatch.

 

5. Two stroke engines require a mixture of fuel and oil to be pre-mixed before it's poured into the tank - most manufacturers are quite strict on the proportions of oil to fuel, and, if too little oil is used, it is extremely easy (and very quick) to damage the piston and barrel of the engine through insufficient lubrication. Most of the pistons and barrels are made of soft alloy and the engine running too hot, or with insufficient lubrication will score the piston skirt and the barrel wall within a few revolutions of the engine - please remember these engines rev up to around 15,000rpm in use so any damage this is caused gets caused very quickly and compounds equally quickly because of the high operational speeds. Once scored, even lightly, the piston and barrel are scrap and should be replaced.

 

6. Most of the "professional" grade tools that are built to last years of day-in-day-out use are priced to match when purchased - they're generally built to a quality, rather than the typical "consumer product" that is, for the most part, built to a price. Obviously, I don't know the ins and outs of the auction, nor the make and model of the chainsaw concerned, but surely it must have seemed an absolute bargain if your OH managed to bag himself a, say, £500 chainsaw for £100? I've found out the hard way in this life that if something seems to cheap or too good to be true, it generally is. That £500 chainsaw is £100 for a reason - to my logical mind, there has to be an element of both common-sense applied here, and of course, good old caveat emptor - "let the buyer beware".

 

Looking at this strictly from the outside, I honestly don't think that your OH has got valid grounds for demanding the seller rescinds the sale and refunds his money. Perhaps it might be an idea to suggest the seller meets you halfway on the cost of repair, if you genuinely believe that, according to the price paid versus the purchase cost of a new identical model , that you have a genuine case for getting that bought back to an "as new" standard (which replacement of the barrel and piston would quite effectively do), you have a valid claim.

 

Put yourself in the seller's shoes. You've got an old chainsaw that's getting to the end of it's useful life for you, yet could serve a "general DIYer" faithfully for many years to come (who wouldn't be hammering it at full throttle for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week after all). You know the engine's got some wear and is down on power, but for reasons of time/productivity and convenience you choose to replace it rather than repair. It's too good a machine to scrap (plus environmentally unfriendly) so you decide to pop it onto an auction site and see what it will fetch. You advertise it reasonably honestly (it does do what it say on the tin, after all) and it gets purchased, at probably a fraction of it's replacement cost if you're lucky. The buyer then comes back to you fairly quickly claiming that the engine needs a rebuild and he's expecting you to foot the bill for that, which, strictly in the eyes of the law is an element of betterment.

 

I'm not trying to be one-sided here - I'm just trying to look at it from both points of view, and introduce a bit of common-sense to the debate.

[noomill060]

I could cut half a dozen four inch fence posts with a hand saw in far less time than it would take me to dig out the chainsaw and persuade the nasty, noisy thing to cough itself into life...

[perplexity]

I am prepared to cover the issue in detail if need be, if a buyer or seller happens to believe that the eBay service is provided pro bono, free of charge, with no terms or conditions for the members to be legally bound by.

 

However, as that is, to say the least, an unusual argument, typical of the fact that a person did not yet read the eBay User Agreement, I would rather not have to.

 

[Kraken1]

Not really. Sellers have a contract, buyers don't. Ebay makes it's money from the sellers. Simple contract law.

 

hence why all the advice is the dsrs don't apply if the seller is not a business.