eBay seller threatening court case on buy it now car.

[webmonkie]

So if he takes me to court and he wins do I end up with a ccj? It's going to be cheaper to pay him off isn't it? Gah I stand the thought of him winning.

[middenmess]

If you give in to him and pay up what's to stop him taking you to court anyway or demanding more money in a week or two?

 

Have you had a response from ebay about his emails?

[mightymouse_69]

If he wins, you will only get a CCJ if you fail to comply with the judgement in 28 days.

[perplexity]

I am confused by this:

 

It was a classified advert with a best offer function, it wasn't a auction hence it had no buy it now price.

According to the eBay listing which is still there to be seen:

 

There is no bidding on this item, so contact the seller for more information.

 

If a best offer bid was made under the auspices of the eBay User Agreement it would thus conclude a consumer contract (between the bidder and eBay), which is to suggest to invoke the distance Selling Regulations to confirm that the contract is cancelled; end of story.

 

Cite recital (10) of the EU Distance Selling Directive 97/7/EC if the seller wants to be clever about the law:

 

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;

[Kraken1]

If a best offer bid was made under the auspices of the eBay User Agreement it would thus conclude a consumer contract (between the bidder and eBay)

 

Sigh. No it won't. We've done this so many times now I can't be bothered to explain contract law to you again. He can't cancell this under the dsrs unless the seller is acting in the course of a business.

[My Real Name]

I would be interested to see what a county court judge would make of his claims about the direct costs of this breach.

 

Interest on the money not received? Time spent chasing? Cost of him cancelling a weekend away?

 

Why not add in the cost of the lifetime of therapy that his children have to go through, because daddy could no longer buy them a pony?

 

Emotional trauma? That's a pricey one.

 

If only there were some precedent to fall back on in cases like this . . .

 

Whilst not extortion, the claims are certainly fanciful.

[perplexity]

Sigh. No it won't. We've done this so many times now I can't be bothered to explain contract law to you again. He can't cancell this under the dsrs unless the seller is acting in the course of a business.

 

 

The trouble then is that attempts to pretend that the Regulations contain terms which do not so much as appear to be an actual part of the statute are doomed to fail because the actual terms are there for all to see, and the same goes for the Directive 97/7/EC.

 

"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 ..." etcetera.

 

eBay is self evidently a business especially concerned to organise distance sales by supplying the service, nor do the regulations require that a contract of sale is concluded, for the right to cancel a contract to exist.

 

The DSRs are not the SOGA.

 

Recital (10) of the EU directive especially provides for the circumstance whereby a series of separate operations over a period of time is subject to successive, separate contracts, so must be respected.

 

[perplexity]

P.S.

 

The important point to realise is that when an eBay seller expects to enforce a bid, he does so as a third party.

 

The seller implicitly invokes the terms of the eBay User Agreement in order to authenticate the best offer as a valid contract. Sellers fail when they rather attempt to treat an eBay sale as a private affair, regardless of the general context of the consumer market that eBay is.

 

The terms of the eBay User Agreement are the same for all, to be treated in the same way for all instances, the effect of the Regulations being to amend the terms of the contract that the Agreement is.

 

[rebel11]

It is harrassment and it is extortion. Why would you send lots of e-mails?, Why would you list half a dozen costs that aren't realistic?. Why is this guy saying he's lost £1,000's? Why does he need to state that he's doing everything within the law? Why is webmonkie feeling harrassed?, why has this guy been tracking webmonkie?

 

Kraken, don't try to justify it. Most reasonable judges will look at the points above.

 

As perpx says above, he has a case.

 

What the seller has said is sort of right, except, as MM pointed out above, he won't be able to claim most of the costs he is claiming.

 

Getting you to go through with the deal, called specific performance, is unlikely. His claim would be for any losses he has incurred that were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was agreed. You probably can't be certain of his actual losses until he actually sells the car. Many of the losses he is claiming are probably unrecoverable as they would not be foreseeable.

 

As for his legal qualifications, trite. I often find that those with legal qualifications rarely shout about it or try to threaten folk with them. They just sue.

 

Harassment? Not on the basis of the email you have put up. Assertive, yes. Harassing, no. Granted, there might be other things he's been up to which might cross the line, but the email alone won't get you anywhere.

 

 

In future, make sure you go back and retract any outstanding offers before buying something else. An offer can be revoked at any point up until acceptance.

Edited August 4, 2010 by rebel11

[naughteblonde]

Good God, was this thread just Fippled?

[webmonkie]

What the Fudge is fippled? According to google it was something to do with a flute or a whistle.

 

Well I don't have enough money to pay the guy his £100 as I am job hunting at the moment after the end of the last contract so

It looks like I am off to county court. I hope you guys can can help me put a semi good case together.

[rebel11]

Make sure you keep a diary of events. Thats really important.

[phoenix11]

Contact Consumer Direct as well.

 

Was it an actual Classified Ad or a BIN with Best Offer?

 

I think the rules that a seller signs up to are different for the two types of listing.

 

 

I could be wrong but I believe if he takes it to court he has to justify why he was trying to con you out of £100 and would then start legal proceedings for even more.

[rebel11]

Good point Phoenix

 

[perplexity]

I think the rules that a seller signs up to are different for the two types of listing.

 

According to eBay's classified ad policy:

 

Classified Ad listings must comply with all existing eBay Marketplace policies ....

 

[rebel11]

In addition to compliance with eBay listing policies, sellers must comply with the eBay Privacy Policy. This policy prohibits sellers from sharing the buyer’s contact information with other people, companies, and organisations. Sellers are also not permitted to use the buyer’s information for any purpose other than communicating with the buyer about the item, service, or property, unless the buyer has expressly permitted them to do so.

[Kraken1]

t is harrassment and it is extortion. Why would you send lots of e-mails?, Why would you list half a dozen costs that aren't realistic?. Why is this guy saying he's lost £1,000's? Why does he need to state that he's doing everything within the law? Why is webmonkie feeling harrassed?, why has this guy been tracking webmonkie?

 

Kraken, don't try to justify it. Most reasonable judges will look at the points above.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't harassment, just that the email pasted is not an example of harassment. The OP would need to provide much more evidence than that email.

Do we know how any emails have been sent?

Why would you list costs that aren't realistic - because he's a numpty and 60% of consumers suing for breach of contract also do it. Ditto to the thousands question. He probably thinks he has lost thousands because he doesn't understand remoteness of damage of that losses must be within the reasonable contemplation of the parties. Why does he state he is doing everything within the law - because he thinks he is and is probably hugely frustrated that the OP doesn't seem to understand that the seller has a really good case. Not to recover all the losses he is claiming, but to win.

 

And a reasonable Dj would look at those points? In a breach of contract claim I doubt it.

 

And Perpx, in case you thought I had forgotten, and for the benefit of other readers:

 

"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 ..." etcetera.

There is no consideration. There is no contract. The DSRs only apply to distance contracts. Publishing an advert does not create some sort of quasi tripartite contractual relationship between the publisher, supplier and consumers that view the advert. Indeed, an advert can only be a unilateral offer in limited circumstances, and always between the supplier and consumer. See the Smokeballs.

 

I appreciate that you are obsessed with the dsrs but please. give it a rest. Get another legal text book out of the library. Or read the one about the dsrs properly.

 

ebay is self evidently a business especially concerned to organise distance sales by supplying the service, nor do the regulations require that a contract of sale is concluded, for the right to cancel a contract to exist.

 

That is tosh. So, the dsrs give a consumer the right to cancel a contract that doesn't exist? Then why would it need to be cancelled if it didn't exist?

[perplexity]

Which part of this is so hard to get?

 

The eBay User agreement is a legally binding contract that especially declares itself as such, i.e.

 

If you reside within the United States, you are contracting with eBay, Inc. In all other countries, your contract is with eBay International AG. If you have any questions, please refer to our Help section.

The User Agreement constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and eBay.

When a member subscribes to the eBay User Ageement his consideration is his promise to abide by the terms of the agreement, in return for the company's offer to provide the service.

 

When a member then proceeds to place a bid or a best offer, that is then his acceptance of eBay's offer to process the bid, in return for which the member is understood to have promised to honour the bid and abide by the rules.

 

There would otherwise be no case for a seller to make against a buyer who fails to pay.

 

Except that eBay's rules and procedures apply, the placing of a best offer on eBay would not mean a thing, nor could an eBay seller enforce terms which do not conform to the Agreement, which in turn is subject to the law.

 

[Kraken1]

Which part of this is so hard to get?

 

That you don't get contract law. Even the most basic parts of it. To have a legally binding contract you need an offer, acceptance consideration, and the intention to be legally bound. And capacity, thinking about it.

 

A promise to abide by the terms of an agreement is not consideration. Just look at all the debt f&f cases for clear examples.

 

Just because something says it is a legally binding contract, does not mean that it is. Even real contracts are full of boiler plate that is there just for bluff value.

 

The agreement might be a contract - if you advertise. It is not a contract if you are a buyer though.

 

You are just going to have to live with the fact that you are in your own world on this. My only reason for continuing to correct your very odd and fairly bizarre statements is so that other readers are not misled by your advice.

 

There would otherwise be no case for a seller to make against a buyer who fails to pay

There is. Is it contract law 101. Read a book about it. You might enjoy it.

[rebel11]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...:RTQ:GB:1123

[middenmess]

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...:RTQ:GB:1123

 

 

Removed by ebay possibly?

[rebel11]

Probably taken down by mr. X.

 

Removed by ebay possibly?

[middenmess]

Not usually possible for seller to have listing completely removed --more likely to be ebay trying to avoid future problems.

[rebel11]

Not usually possible for seller to have listing completely removed --more likely to be ebay trying to avoid future problems.

 

O.K.

[perplexity]

A promise to abide by the terms of an agreement is not consideration.

 

All contracts are promises to abide by the agreement that the contract is.