eBay seller threatening court case on buy it now car.

[perplexity]

I looked through the thread again but found no reply to this

 

So keep records of all the calls and threats - have you got an incident number or some record from the police?

...

which is not the impression of a defendant doing all that he can to sort it out for himself.

 

The Police are paid to investigate. I am not.

 

Stuff from 1986 is out of date because of the considerably increased scope of the Fraud Act which was passed in 2006. Fraud by false representation

and Fraud by failing to disclose information are now defined as offences which they were not before.

 

If you intend to proceed to a civil court to assert that a criminal offence took place the proof of that would be the conviction of the suspect. Otherwise I would not be so surprised if a judge reserved his judgement and told you to go away to sort it out.

 

[Bookworm]

Maybe because he had already stated in #7 that he had reported it to the police, long before MM asked him? And because he has also answered to the questions about keeping record of calls and e-mails throughout?

[wheelergeezer]

Do you know what? I really don't care what the outcome is anymore. I have almost lost the will to live after reading right through this.

 

The Op has now written to to the seller again. Don't really see why, but there you go. Now I think we should all have a break and see if the seller issues papers or not.

[Bookworm]

There there. *pats on WG's back* Don't fash yarself, laddie.

[spammers]

I fail to see what there is to keep writing about here; until this loser issues a summons (which i strongly doubt) there is nothing to discuss. This is a small claim, he has not lost the car. He is trying to extort money by threat (itself a crime) and will sell the car on again anyway, with no loss of fees from Ebay.

 

OP do NOT give this muppet anything except the **** of your shoe as to offer will only lend yourself to further blackmail.

[wheelergeezer]

Aye. I cannie tak it any moore.

[Kraken1]

You do talk and talk and talk a load of rubbish

 

Amen.

 

I find myself in two minds about Perps comments. I don't want to try and argue, but feel I need to because the posts are often so daft and so wrong. It is scary. Nearly as scary as the delusion.

 

Sigh.

[Crapstone]

Does it matter? A promise is not part of a contract in England. Much the same as you can put an offer in for a house and have it taken off the market with no ill effect, should the sale fall through. It's an invitation to treat and, like the seller, you can change your mind and not go through it. I'd ignore them completely . If they go to court then they are going to look very silly when the emails are given as a defence.

[Crapstone]

You may be at loss to see, but that doesn't mean others haven't gone to Specsavers!

[perplexity]

Does it matter? A promise is not part of a contract in England. Much the same as you can put an offer in for a house and have it taken off the market with no ill effect, should the sale fall through. It's an invitation to treat and, like the seller, you can change your mind and not go through it. I'd ignore them completely . If they go to court then they are going to look very silly when the emails are given as a defence.

 

-----

An invitation to treat is an offer to enter into negotiation

 

According to eBay's terms and conditions

 

You should make a Best Offer only when you’re serious about buying the item at your Best Offer price. As with bidding on auction-style listings, your Best Offer is binding. If your offer is accepted by the seller, you are obliged to pay for it.

However, there is also the non binding bid policy:

 

Certain eBay listings involve non-binding bids, such as items listed in Property and eBay Motors. A non-binding bid isn't a formal contract between the buyer and the seller, but it does represent a buyer's serious interest in buying the item. Insincere bidding isn't allowed on eBay.

However, as I wrote before, if the supposed contract was concluded apart from eBay's integrated bidding system, it is a question of what exactly the buyer's offer consisted of, according to his own terms.

 

The test would be whether or not there was anything yet to negotiate, not yet settled or clear, which is a matter of fact that is not for me to judge. Those who fancy themselves as a judge should rather apply for the job and see how far they get.

 

At a Court hearing one would at least expect to hear the seller's side of the story, which we did not.

 

8)

[rebel11]

I agree, I'm sure the judge will ask the seller why there are so many discrepancies in the E-bay ad and why he has mis-represented the item for sale?

 

-----

An invitation to treat is an offer to enter into negotiation

 

According to eBay's terms and conditions

 

However, there is also the non binding bid policy:

 

However, as I wrote before, if the supposed contract was concluded apart from eBay's integrated bidding system, it is a question of what exactly the buyer's offer consisted of, according to his own terms.

 

The test would be whether or not there was anything yet to negotiate, not yet settled or clear, which is a matter of fact that is not for me to judge. Those who fancy themselves as a judge should rather apply for the job and see how far they get.

 

At a Court hearing one would at least expect to hear the seller's side of the story, which we did not.

 

8)

[Kraken1]

Does it matter? A promise is not part of a contract in England. Much the same as you can put an offer in for a house and have it taken off the market with no ill effect, should the sale fall through. It's an invitation to treat and, like the seller, you can change your mind and not go through it.

 

It can be. the issue with property is because the law mandates a few more formalities for land. Otherwise oral promises can be instrumental in a contract. An invitation to treat is something else. In this case, the invitation to treat would have been the advert. the offer would have come after this.

[hightail]

In this case, the invitation to treat would have been the advert. the offer would have come after this

 

If I understand this correctly the invitation to treat (the advert) is then loosely the equivalent of a price tag on something in a shop window. In a shop the buyer can get as far as the till, even have the item rung through the till and still change their mind ie the contract is not complete until payment has changed hands. If this is right (and I am asking not telling) then surely any first bidder offering the advertised start price set by the seller is in the same situation as they would be in a shop and the same as if they answered any classified ad. Even if bidders are bound by their bids on ebay, only second and subsequent bids would be considered as auction format and therefore binding.

[Kraken1]

If I understand this correctly the invitation to treat (the advert) is then loosely the equivalent of a price tag on something in a shop window.

 

Exactly the same. There is even a notable court case on the issue - pharmaceutical society of great britain v boots cash chemists.

 

In a shop the buyer can get as far as the till, even have the item rung through the till and still change their mind ie the contract is not complete until payment has changed hands.

 

True. The offer is made by the buyer taking it to the till and offering to pay for it. The seller then accepts this offer by taking the money. They key point is the acceptance. An offeror can revoke an offer at any point up until it is accepted.

 

If this is right (and I am asking not telling) then surely any first bidder offering the advertised start price set by the seller is in the same situation as they would be in a shop and the same as if they answered any classified ad

.

 

You are right, but also a little wrong. There is an offer but for a contract to exist this must be accepted. With your example there is no actual acceptance so no contract. With a tradition auction, so not strictly relevant here, the offer is the bid and the acceptance is the hammer falling.

 

Even if bidders are bound by their bids on ebay, only second and subsequent bids would be considered as auction format and therefore binding.

 

true. However here this wasn't an auction.

 

To have a valid contract you need:

 

an offer

acceptance

consideration

intention to be legally bound (or the perception of this)

capacity to contract

 

Consideration, which is just money, does not have to be paid with acceptance for there to be a valid contract, it just has to be a part of the contract. When you order something for example you might sign a contract but not actually pay a deposit or any money until the contract is completed. It can really help to prove the existence of a contract if money is paid up front, or if there is a signed contract, but it is not necessary. Look at mobile phone contracts for example, it might be a month before you pay anything. the same is often the case with many furniture purchases.

 

the point of the deposit is not to ensure that there is a contract, it is to provide an assurance of performance and to allow the seller an easy remedy (keeping the deposit) if the buyer backs out.

[spammers]

omg poor OP all these threads to read, these two should take it outside

[perplexity]

If this is right (and I am asking not telling) then surely any first bidder offering the advertised start price set by the seller is in the same situation as they would be in a shop and the same as if they answered any classified ad. Even if bidders are bound by their bids on ebay, only second and subsequent bids would be considered as auction format and therefore binding.

--

Transactions concluded on eBay are not auctions.

 

When a member places a bid for an 'auction' format listing on eBay, that's an acceptance of eBay's offer to process the bid, which is bound to the User Agreement rather than a seller's terms of sale, which is not what happens in a shop or with a classified advertisement without a User Agreement to determine the course of events.

 

The contract of sale is concluded when the highest eventual bid accepts a seller's offer to sell, whether or not the price is fixed by the auction process, a best offer, or a 'buy it now' opportunity.

 

A contract of sale could not be concluded before that point because the terms are incomplete. With an item listing still in progress the price is not yet fixed and a seller may change his terms, by discretely agreeing to a postage charge for instance. For as long as an issue has yet to be negotiated the contract of sale would not be concluded.

 

[wheelergeezer]

Which is all lovely, but irrelevant to this thread. The OP changed their mind. They are allowed to so with good reason, the 'advert' or listing was misleading. Ignoring the painted wing for a moment, the inaccuracy over the 'warranted 42,0000 miles' is all that is needed. Had the seller used the words 'appx 42,000 miles, that would have been ok. Had the seller also said 'not been damaged since I have owned it' that would have also been ok. Under those circumsances the seller would have a stronger case. However, the DSR's still apply and upon actually viewing the car the buyer would have seen the condition is not what they thought and recinded the sale on that basis.

[perplexity]

However, the DSR's still apply and upon actually viewing the car the buyer would have seen the condition is not what they thought and recinded the sale on that basis.

---

The basis for the cancellation of a consumer contract under the Distance Selling Regulations is the law itself and the fact that the contract was cancelled. A buyer's reason is irrelevant because the right to cancel is unconditional; a buyer is not obliged to give a reason.

 

In order to complain about the condition of goods delivered to a buyer the goods would have to have been delivered and the the contract would have to be treated as as if it had been made and is still in force, while section 10 of the Regulations especially insists that

 

(2) Except as otherwise provided by these Regulations, the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall be treated as if it had not been made.

---

The criminal law would still apply to an attempt to sell goods on the strength of a false description but I would not expect a judge in a county court to let you have your cake and eat it.

---

When a buyer makes an offer at a traditional auction or in private with an equal chance to negotiate the terms, the crucial difference is that the buyer bears the responsibility of examining the goods. It's up to the buyer to be sure that goods are good before the offer is made and if he fails to do so that's his own fault, caveat emptor.

 

To avoid an unfortunate result, don't make an offer before the goods are examined and if you do make an offer before the good are examined, own up to the fact that you were hoping that the seller would take the offer before a better one arrived, if that is the truth of it.

 

[wheelergeezer]

The OP made an offer and did not get a response. By the time the offer was accepted the Op had found a car elsewhere. That should have been the end of the matter. The seller decided to get on their high horse, so the OP is forced to justify their reason for not proceeding. His reason is that he didn't get acceptance in time and then found another vehicle. To reinforce that it has since come to light that the advert was misleading for the reasons already stated.

 

County court judges will look at all claims with an open mind and will take into account the position of the two parties to some extent. ie, a business will not get so much leway as a private individual because they should know the laws better. In this case we have two (we have to asume) private individuals. One of them has been making unreasonable demands and actual threats to the other. That most certainly will be taken into account.

 

Just out of interest. How many times have YOU been to a county court to either bring or defend a case? I have been to court 17 times, 14 to bring a case and 3 to defend. I have won 17 times.

[rebel11]

It is glaringly obvious that the seller has been less then honest, people can bang on about 'contracts', but the reality is that the seller has mis-represented the item for sale and tried to induce a contract by the misleading discription of the car. When I first looked at the car ad, all I could spot was the inconsistency with the MOT, clearly

Wheeler is a very knowledgable when it comes to cars. So the inconsistencies were well hidden in the descriptions. This ad is designed to trap folk, maybe with the intention of extorting money.

[Bookworm]

Just out of interest. How many times have YOU been to a county court to either bring or defend a case? I have been to court 17 times, 14 to bring a case and 3 to defend. I have won 17 times.

I think you'll find that PerpX doesn't answer that kind of questions, instead tries to change the subject to a "there's nothing to be proud of if you end up in court" as you can see from the previous exchange he had with me (#139).

[middenmess]

I always understood that the DSR's only apply when buying from a business as a private individual.

 

AFAIK no one has shown the seller to be a business or have I missed something?

[wheelergeezer]

DSR's also apply to private sellers - much to many Ebayers cost!

[wheelergeezer]

Just in case the original listing completely vanishes, here is the wording:

Item specifics - Cars & Other Vehicles

 

Condition: Used: An item that has been previously used. See the seller’s listing for full details and description of any imperfections. See all condition definitions- opens in a new window or tab... Read moreabout the condition

Manufacturer: Nissan

Colour: Silver

Model: Skyline

Engine Size: 2,490 cc

Type: Sports/Convertible

Power: --

Mileage: 42000

Seats: 5

Doors: 4

MOT Expiry: Feb 2011

Model Year: 1998

Drive Side: Right-hand drive

Reg. Date: 01 Dec 1998

Road Tax: Mar 2011

Exterior: Alloy Wheels, Catalytic Converter, Rear Spoiler, Tuning, bodykit

Previous Owners: 0

V5 Document: Present

Transmission: Semi-Automatic

Manufacturer's Warranty: --

Fuel: Petrol

In-Car Audio: AM/FM Stereo, CD Player, Navigation System, Premium Sound System, DVD

Service History: Yes

Interior/Comfort Options: Air Conditioning, Auxiliary heating, Climate Control, Power-assisted Steering (PAS), Power Locks, Power Windows, Tilt Steering WheelSafety Features: Anti-Lock Brakes (ABS), Driver Airbag, Electronic Stability Program (ESP), Passenger Airbag, Rear seat belts, Safety Belt Pretensioners, Xenon headlights

 

Skyline GT-T (Turbo) 2.5l Neo Single Turbo, 42,000 miles

4 door, full GTR bodykit, front, side and rear

 

 

MOT until Feb 21st 2011

Tax until Feb 28th 2011

 

 

New battery with warranty in March 2010

Fujitsubo Big bore muffler (I also have the standard muffler in good condition)

Tiptronic gearbox

In dash widescreen touch screen GPS sat nav / DVD player with bluetooth.

 

 

Fitted in April: smoked side repeaters, Induction kit (photographed) I have the originals here as well which can be easily replaced if you wish.

 

 

Otherwise standard. Standard spec includes full electric windows / mirrors including auto fold in. HID headlights with automatic sensors. Traction control with option to switch off. Fully auto climate control with air con.

 

 

Service History

Sept 1998 605km

Jan 1999 4035km

July 1999 7768km

July 2001 22054km

July 2005 51045km

July 2007 59800km

NOW 69983km – JUST 42,000 miles!!

 

 

The car was purchased by me personally in Japan in 2009 and I had the bodykit fitted to the car in a specialist workshop in Japan. I have photographic documentation of this work which will be given to the buyer on a CD Rom. The bodykit is actually very rare and custom made by a firm I know in Japan. It was very expensive and I debated for a long time before buying it.. I have to say though I am pleased with the results.

 

 

The car is in excellent condition with no problems or damage in or out, as the bodykit was only fitted last year it also means that there are very few / no stone chips on the car. A fantastic drifting or family car. I have recently been to Brugge in the car with my wife and son and the trip was fantastic. The only fault is that there is a significant amount of scuffing to the alloys.

 

 

This really is a unique car, I guarantee that you will not find another in this condition with this kit and such low warranted mileage. I am happy to answer any questions so please feel free to ask.

 

 

 

REDUCED FOR A QUICK SALE

 

From the DVLA database:

 

The enquiry is complete The vehicle details for xxx xxxx are:

Date of Liability 01 03 2011

Date of First Registration 10 03 2010

Year of Manufacture 1998

Cylinder Capacity (cc) 2490CC

CO2 Emissions 0g/Km

Fuel Type Petrol

Export Marker Not Applicable

Vehicle Status Licence Not Due

Vehicle Colour SILVER

Vehicle Type Approval

Vehicle Excise Duty Rate for vehicle 6 Months Rate £112.75 12 Months Rate £205.00

_________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Now just from the wording of the listing you will see the mileage is quoted twice as being 42,000 miles. That is incorrect. Also the registration date is listed as 1 December 1998, in fact it was 10 March 2010.

 

I appreciate that the ORIGINAL registation in Japan may well have been 1 December 1998, but for vehicles sold in the Uk , registration date is the date 1st registered wth DVLA. As an imported vehicle it should have also mentioned in the listing that the vehicle was originally registered in 1998 so people don't mistakenly think the car was made in 2010.

 

The seller has made some (possibly) innocent errors. However they are errors and misleading, particularly the warranted mileage which cannot be warranted.

 

Add to that the clearly repainted wing and you have a misdescribed car.

 

Car is listed as having 0 previous owners. This we know is false because the car was previously registed in Japan. We do not know how many previous, but we do know it is more than 0.

 

I am not conviced or suggesting any of this was deliberitly misleading, but misleading it is all the same. IMHO the seller made some errors in the listing, particularly calculating the mileage, and may actually not have noticed the wing colour - I do have a professionally trained eye for that, but the response according to the OP is not acceptable and hence the advise given on here to let the seller proceed with court action. I am 100% certain the seller would not win a county court claim at all.

[perplexity]

The OP made an offer and did not get a response. By the time the offer was accepted the Op had found a car elsewhere. That should have been the end of the matter.

 

Yes indeed, it should the end of it, if the buyer informed the seller and the seller had not yet accepted the offer, but the buyer failed to do so; the buyer "totally forgot about it".

 

Just out of interest. How many times have YOU been to a county court to either bring or defend a case? I have been to court 17 times, 14 to bring a case and 3 to defend. I have won 17 times.

 

As it happens I have never so much as threatened a dishonest eBay seller with civil action because it lets them off the hook, win or lose. If need be I threaten with a criminal prosecution. Unfair trading practices are strict libility offences nowadays, so that much more clear cut than it would be in a county court.

 

It is glaringly obvious that the seller has been less then honest, people can bang on about 'contracts', but the reality is that the seller has mis-represented the item for sale and tried to induce a contract by the misleading discription of the car. When I first looked at the car ad, all I could spot was the inconsistency with the MOT, clearly

Wheeler is a very knowledgable when it comes to cars. So the inconsistencies were well hidden in the descriptions. This ad is designed to trap folk, maybe with the intention of extorting money.

 

What is glaringly obvious to me is the suspect was not yet prosecuted, let alone the chance to convict. This is neither a Police station nor a court of law, so I suggest to get on with that if it's really so glaringly obvious.

 

I always understood that the DSR's only apply when buying from a business as a private individual.

 

AFAIK no one has shown the seller to be a business or have I missed something?

 

That was already covered. Read the thread.