Jump to content


eBay seller threatening court case on buy it now car.


webmonkie
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4287 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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). :rolleyes:
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheeler,

 

I'm adding the inconsistences in the ad, plus the actions of the seller, doesn't sound like his priority is to sell the car, for the £1,000's he's lost he wants a £100.

 

How the seller couldn't spot the wing is a different shade of silver is difficult to fathom, maybe he doesn't think a potential buyer

wouldn't mind or notice.

Edited by rebel11
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:cool:

Suspect????? What suspect?????

 

I must make my viewpoint here crystal clear in case the original ebay seller reads any of this. I am NOT suggesting the seller is dishonest or a criminal in any way whatsoever. I suggest the seller made mistakes and has ( if the OP is to be believed) behaved like a muppet since the transaction was cancelled. That does not make them a suspect.

Edited by wheelergeezer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheeler,

 

I'm adding the inconsistences in the ad, plus the actions of the seller, doesn't sound like his priority is to sell the car, for the £1,000's he's lost he wants a £100.

 

Apprciated, but the seller hasn't 'lost' anything at all. He still has the car. If he sold it for say £10,000 on this occasion and now re-writes the ad correctly and accurately and only sells it for £8,000 there would be a suggestion that he has 'lost' £2,000. However, that hasn't happened and even if it did, the fact that the original listing was misleading would be reflected in the lower selling price in any event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An offer is available for acceptance at any point - and for any period of time until it is withdrawn, accepted or a counter offer is made. The passage of time might cancel an offer in some circumstances, and an offer might be time limited. For example 'I'll buy your aarvark but I need to know by tuesday if you want to accept my offer'.

 

The dsrs really reall don't apply to anyone not acting in a professional capacity. The courts say so. the regs say so. Even Perps much vaunted German courts don't think they do:

 

Bundesgerichtshof (VIII ZR 375/03) (Unreported, November 3, 2004) (Germany)

...The German Supreme Court decided that the purchase of goods via an online auction platform qualifies under certain conditions as a distant selling transaction and give the buyer a right to withdraw from the purchase...

The court found, that despite the common title “online auction”, transactions processed on eBay“s platform are not auctions. Auctions, the court argued, are transactions in which the contract is concluded by the acceptance of the bid by the person leading the auction. In online auctions, the contract is concluded by the acceptance of the seller's offer by the bidding purchaser without a third person's (or a piece of software's) involvement...

...The decision only affects commercial sellers of goods using online auctions: purchases from private sellers do not give a right of withdrawal....

 

As for the misleading aspects of the advert. I don't think this argument is as strong as some posters seem to think. The milage is quoted accurately in km and then converted poorly and is only a fraction of a percent out. The car is represented as being free from damage, not 'has never been damaged'. I doubt the registration date issue would fly unless it was the other way around, he saying that the car is older than the uk registration would imply. There is an argument to be made, but it isn't bullet proof in my view.

 

I agree with perpy that a DJ in the County Court would be unlikely to give credence to an argument that there had been a criminal offence. I think it is likely that we hold these views for different reasons though... :)

 

If we are doing the 'how many cases' have you been involved in thing - no idea. I'm guessing it is in the thousands now. the caveat being that only a very very small number of those have reached court. I treat that as a success, by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and as for threatening with criminal prosecution, unless you have the power and resources to do so it is a daft strategic step. It is very likely to result the target of your threat writing you off as a nut.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed it, but who apart from Perpx has mentioned criminal court? :-? it seems clear to me that everyone on here has agreed that if there is a case, it would be a civil one, and if I have missed it, could someone please point me to the post?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The milage is quoted accurately in km and then converted poorly and is only a fraction of a percent out.

 

It is actually 3.536% out which is considerably more than a fraction. And, whether the original kms is shown or not, the title of the listing clearly says 'warranted 42,000 miles'. It cannot be.

Edited by wheelergeezer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Kraken

 

Should any potenital buyers be informed that 10% of the car is a different shade? would you buy the car under those circumstances?

 

'As for the misleading aspects of the advert. I don't think this argument is as strong as some posters seem to think. The milage is quoted accurately in km and then converted poorly and is only a fraction of a percent out. The car is represented as being free from damage, not 'has never been damaged'. I doubt the registration date issue would fly unless it was the other way around, he saying that the car is older than the uk registration would imply. There is an argument to be made, but it isn't bullet proof in my view.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably because I'm not giving the seller the benefit of doubt, perplex is adding two plus two and getting five.

 

I may have missed it, but who apart from Perpx has mentioned criminal court? :-? it seems clear to me that everyone on here has agreed that if there is a case, it would be a civil one, and if I have missed it, could someone please point me to the post?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re mileage - It says both, though, that is the point. I don't think that it is a huge amount. In my experience when looking at autotrader type vehicles the mileage is almost always out, especially if the advert is a few weeks old. The complexity here is that the recorded mileage of the car - as it appears - is accurate. It is the conversion that is wrong. A reader could do the maths himself and realise the error.

 

Personally, I don't think that extra bit of mileage really makes a whole lot of difference. I doubt many would refuse to buy on those grounds, or that it would alter the true value much. Just my opinion though, which is the crux of the argument. If not everyone is unilaterally of the view that it is too misleading then there is a chance a dj might also take the view. Hence my earlier comment - 'There is an argument to be made, but it isn't bullet proof in my view.'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should any potenital buyers be informed that 10% of the car is a different shade?

 

Legally, no. And it can be seen from the photo, unless it is a trick of the light.

 

would you buy the car under those circumstances?

 

No. But it is academic legally because I wouldn't have made an offer to, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

. The complexity here is that the recorded mileage of the car - as it appears - is accurate. It is the conversion that is wrong. A reader could do the maths himself and realise the error.

 

Personally, I don't think that extra bit of mileage really makes a whole lot of difference.

 

We asume it is accurate. Maybe that is just another error? My point was that the 'warranted 42,000 miles' claim is proved to be flawed at least. 3.5% is not a huge amount agreed, unless it is a 3.5% hike in VAT, petrol prices, train fares. Perhaps a 3.5% cut in wages isn't a problem? Mmmmmmmmm it is all perspective.

 

Ulimtalely, no monies changed hands and an offer to buy is not a legally binding commitment to buy. It would always be subject to the listing being accurate and on closer inspection it isn't. The fact they didn't mention it before is perhaps because like many others, nobody seemed to notice except me. Now they have been made aware of it it may or may not be an issue.

 

The seller hasn't lost an monies at all as Ebay classified adverts are free. So, the only thing that has been lost by the sounds of it is the sellers temper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

perplexity

 

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by middenmess viewpost-right.png

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.

 

Perp --you seem determined to alienate everyone--why put a snotty 'read the thread' as a reply to my innocent question.

If you have total recall of over 180 postings then well done you and why not just post a link to it?

Edited by middenmess
Made a new post
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

 

DSR's do not apply to private sellers.

 

The OFT says that... 'the supplier is .... any person who is acting in a commercial or professional capacity'

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

 

and the same when dealing specifically with cars

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft689.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Webmonkie, have you actually received anything in the post yet?? Have they actually even sent you a letter before action?

 

I'd say this seller is probably all talk and no action, just trying to bully you into handing over some money. I'd say have no more contact until you actually receive a letter before action in the post, which should be sent via recorded or signed for delivery.

 

I'd also go with weelergeezer's advice in general, given they have such a successful record of taking things to court or defending them!

 

(ps - I didn't bother reading all the bickering posts. TBH, it got a bit boring)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DSR's do not apply to private sellers.

The OFT says that... 'the supplier is .... any person who is acting in a commercial or professional capacity'

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

and the same when dealing specifically with cars

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/consumer_protection/oft689.pdf

 

The OFT says

 

How do the DSRs apply to auction sites on the internet?

 

2.19 This depends on specific circumstances, for example:

• the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller

The Regulations apply to a distance contract, which on eBay would be the terms of the eBay User Agreement, the agreement to provide a member with the capacity to sell, so "a seller" is therefore the sellers in general who subscribe to the Agreement.

 

Section 6 of the interpretation Act applies, as does Recital (10) of the EU Directive 97/7/EC.

 

"Commercial" implies that money changes hands. See for instance Directive 2006/79/EC on tax exemptions of a non-commercial character. The definition of a supplier approximates to Section 3 of the SoGA.

 

In any case, nobody should have to show that the seller is a business. An exception to the Regulations would have to be claimed and proved by the seller.

 

(22) Whereas in the use of new technologies the consumer is not in control of the means of communication used; whereas it is therefore necessary to provide that the burden of proof may be on the supplier;

Section 5 of the Distance Selling Regulations lists excepted contracts, none of which allude.

 

:cool:

 

In case it helps:

 

http://reviews.ebay.co.uk/LEGAL-ADVICE-REGARDS-BUYING-AND-SELLING_W0QQugidZ10000000001449898?ssPageName=BUYGD:CAT:-1:LISTINGS:2

 

--------------------

 

The courts say so. the regs say so. Even Perps much vaunted German courts don't think they do:

 

That is not correct.

 

Here is the original report of the case: http://www.jurpc.de/rechtspr/20040281.htm

 

You will find that the status of the seller was not an issue, not in dispute.

 

Here is the press release from the Court, in English:

 

http://archiv.jura.uni-saarland.de/lawweb/pressreleases/internetauctions.html

 

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you delve into Ebay correctly, you will find that final bids and accepted offers are binding, EXCEPT in a couple of areas. One of which just happens to be MOTORS. Whichever way you cut the mustard, this Ebay bidder is NOT obliged to buy and won't be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...