Im being taken to Small Claims by an Ebay Buyer. HELP!

[jf935298]

Hi, a different perspective on this. Im being taken to the small claims court for a private Ebay sale. I sold a Tent in Nov 09 which was collected in person and paid for in cash. 230! days later the buyer tells me it wasnt as described and wants a refund. I said if he had come to me sooner I could have validated his claim, but as its been soooo long (No feedback was given & my Ebay seller aco**** doesn't even have a record of the sale anymore!) that I cant now prove it is my fault or his. Under the sales of goods “reasonable” time is allowed for an (alleged) misdescribed private sale. As its a Tent would 230days (till June) be deemed a reasonable time? Im concerned Im going to get a ccj for a small claim of £120? Ive sent the court papers back stating Im going to defend the case. But Im still worried. But I genuinely feel that for a private Ebay sale, for the buyer to say he isnt happy 230days later is unreasonable. Am I likely to lose? many thanks.

[MrShed]

What is his specific issue?

[jf935298]

What is his specific issue?

Well as I said, he says the item was misdescribed.

He says it wasnt new and had been used. And that there were poles missing. I had 3 to sell of these. The other two buyers left positive feedback.

 

Cheers

Edited October 12, 2010 by jf935298
Gramma correction

[Dragons Dennis]

It is not a private sale. The fact you had two others to sell and you refer to them as customers, tells me you are a trader. You might not think so, but that is how the law and any court will see this.

 

However, in your favour is the time lapsed between receiving the goods and a complaint. 9 months is far reasonable to poiunt out an error with what was received. 14 days is reasonable, 28 days would be acceptable but 9 months is beyond all reason.

 

If the itemn has developed a fault, that is differenet. But missing parts upoin delivery or wrong colour etc only noticed 9 months later, no chance at all in court.

[jf935298]

It is not a private sale. The fact you had two others to sell and you refer to them as customers, tells me you are a trader. You might not think so, but that is how the law and any court will see this.

 

However, in your favour is the time lapsed between receiving the goods and a complaint. 9 months is far reasonable to poiunt out an error with what was received. 14 days is reasonable, 28 days would be acceptable but 9 months is beyond all reason.

 

If the itemn has developed a fault, that is differenet. But missing parts upoin delivery or wrong colour etc only noticed 9 months later, no chance at all in court.

 

Thanks for the advice. Im amazed that Im now classed as a trader because I had 3! I only have a feedback of 61 and half of that is for purchases! lol I bought them at a bancruptcy auction as I wanted one but there were four altogether. So I had 3 extra on my hands. Point taken though.

 

Anyhoo. I too feel that 9 months is a reasonable time, but as its a tent which could be seen as seasonal and not something more daily like a TV, Im still in two minds as to if they will agree with me as to what is reasonable? To be honest Im not looking fwd to the whole thing. The mrs has just had a 2nd miscarriage and Im not sure if I can take any more hassle. So if there isnt a good chance of success Im wondering if I should just pay up even though I feel Im being taken for a ride?

 

Cheers.

[MrShed]

I think this is a difficult one, as I agree with you on the seasonal comment.

 

Generally speaking though 9 months is highly unreasonable, and I would be quite surprised if a court sided with the claimant. But it isnt open and shut.

 

Dont worry about any CCJ element, as long as you pay it immediately after judgement you do not end up with a CCJ.

 

Personally, I would fight it - but its obviously a personal choice whether it is worth paying the £120 for the sake of an easy life.

[electron99]

Let me guess. The buyer has had a happy summer camping out in your tent and now wants his money back because it is used, and he can prove it.

 

I would defend against this nonsense as he is being unreasonable.

[jf935298]

Let me guess. The buyer has had a happy summer camping out in your tent and now wants his money back because it is used, and he can prove it.

 

I would defend against this nonsense as he is being unreasonable.

 

Not sure about him having a happy Summer...as he got in touch in June. But it was a rather sunny spring! lol

 

Thanks for the advice. I may toss a coin on this one. Its reassuring regarding the ccj if its paid promptly (should it go t*ts up), so I may take a punt....

 

Cheers

[perplexity]

If the itemn has developed a fault, that is differenet. But missing parts upoin delivery or wrong colour etc only noticed 9 months later, no chance at all in court.

 

 

Directive 1999/44/EC sets the (minimum) standard within the European Community:

 

Time limits

 

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

Article 3(2) entitles the consumer to a repair or replacement.

 

8-)

 

P.S.

 

You could argue that the lack of conformity is minor. [Article 3(6)].

[jf935298]

 

Article 3(2) entitles the consumer to a repair or replacement.

 

8-)

 

P.S.

 

You could argue that the lack of conformity is minor. [Article 3(6)].

 

Hi, Thanks for the reply.

 

Sorry Im not a legal bod so this is all a new language to me.

Im not clear on what a "lack of conformity" is?

And is this telling me that a private account on Ebay can be held liable for two years for any problems with an item they sell? blimey!

 

Cheers

[Dragons Dennis]

Troll alert

[MrShed]

Hi, Thanks for the reply.

 

Sorry Im not a legal bod so this is all a new language to me.

Im not clear on what a "lack of conformity" is?

And is this telling me that a private account on Ebay can be held liable for two years for any problems with an item they sell? blimey!

 

Cheers

 

Ignore him - hes our resident troll.

[jf935298]

Ignore him - hes our resident troll.

 

Im confused...lol

[Dragons Dennis]

You will be if you read or listen to anything written by PERPLEXITY. He is what forums call a TROLL, that means he just posts crap which looks on the face of it like knowledge, but is actually BS.

[buzby]

As the others have noted, ignore Mr P, hew does this all the time. the fact you had 3 to sell doesn't make you a 'trader'. If you are running a business selling these items for profit, then perhaps - but not otherwise. I would assume he's able to take court action at no cost to himself and is just trying it on. If you sent out 2 of the items with no problem, you have an expectation that the remaining one is fine also. The fact he has taken so long to do anything about it weighs heavily against him, and it is fair to point out he had 45 days in which to verify his purchase was what he wequired. After this length of time, his claim is vexatious. Did you receive an LBA...? What was his response?

[Dragons Dennis]

I disagree Buzby. The OP sold multiples of the same item, ie 3 tents and refers to other buyers as 'customers'. I can assure you that a court will view those two facts as a trader, albeit small time trading, trade nonetheless.

[buzby]

Disagree away, but three tents do not a trader make. Following that logic, if I fix my headache on a regular basis that makes me a doctor?

 

On a side issue, I'm selling my large collection of CDs on eBay, as I just don;t have the space anymore. There are over 2000 of them. However, by selling them does NOT make me a 'Trader' - for that to happen it would need to form the basis of selling 'by way of trade'. I'm not, if they sell great - if they don't I can keep them, use them or throw them out. Even HMRC are clear on the issue, goods originally purchased for the purpose of retailing at profit define a business (trader) activity. Just because I have 3 CDs to sell does not. Neither does the fact I got the original purchase price and then some because the items was highly prized by collectors. Selling your own property is also allowed.

 

I can also assure you tha a court will NOT view this as trading - and I've seen many disputes where this has been asserted by a complainant and thrown out by the judge as an irrelevance.

[perplexity]

Hi, Thanks for the reply.

 

Sorry Im not a legal bod so this is all a new language to me.

Im not clear on what a "lack of conformity" is?

And is this telling me that a private account on Ebay can be held liable for two years for any problems with an item they sell? blimey!

 

Cheers

 

Sections 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act correspond to the requirement to conform. It means that the goods must be what the seller said they were, and the terms for delivery etcetera must also be fulfilled.

 

The Directive is entirely implemented by various parts of the UK legislation, which extend the rights of a consumer in some respects. The interpretation of what amounts to a business, for instance, is a good deal broader in the UK than some other parts of Europe.

 

Otherwise, it is commendably convenient to refer to the directive because it lays out the rights and duties all in one go and applies to the entirety of the European community, to define a minimal degree of consumer protection for all.

 

[jf935298]

Disagree away, but three tents do not a trader make. Following that logic, if I fix my headache on a regular basis that makes me a doctor?

 

On a side issue, I'm selling my large collection of CDs on eBay, as I just don;t have the space anymore. There are over 2000 of them. However, by selling them does NOT make me a 'Trader' - for that to happen it would need to form the basis of selling 'by way of trade'. I'm not, if they sell great - if they don't I can keep them, use them or throw them out. Even HMRC are clear on the issue, goods originally purchased for the purpose of retailing at profit define a business (trader) activity. Just because I have 3 CDs to sell does not. Neither does the fact I got the original purchase price and then some because the items was highly prized by collectors. Selling your own property is also allowed.

 

I can also assure you tha a court will NOT view this as trading - and I've seen many disputes where this has been asserted by a complainant and thrown out by the judge as an irrelevance.

 

I'll play top trumps and go with the highest poster...

On a side note, Ive only made the faux par of saying the C word here ( a by product of me being a retail manager) and I only mentioned the feedback on the spare tents to illustrate the fact Im not a dodgy seller. Who knew itd become a key feature! lol The court is not aware of either of these facts. But I do take heed of all advice given, so if they decide I am or not based on my 3 tent selling shenanigans. How will it make a difference to how the case is handled?

 

Thanks.

[MrShed]

I cant see that it makes a blind bit of difference in this specific case.

 

The area in question is the "not as described" part of SOGA - this section is applicable to both private sellers and traders, and so I dont see that it is entirely relevant (although it is certainly an interesting point).

 

For my tuppence worth, I agree with buzby - three sales does not a trader make.

[Dragons Dennis]

Disagree away, but three tents do not a trader make. Following that logic, if I fix my headache on a regular basis that makes me a doctor?

 

 

I have no problem with you and I having a different opinion. But what is the rudeness and mockery for? If you think fixing your headache 3 times makes you a doctor, then carry on. Selling multiple items on ebay and referring to your buyers as customers does indeed suggest you are trading to me and will to a court. Like you, I have seen quite a number of cases in court where people have made themselves traders by the very nature of their defence.

 

This forum is bound to have different viewpoints and opinions, which makes for healthy discussion and debate.

[perplexity]

The area in question is the "not as described" part of SOGA - this section is applicable to both private sellers and traders, ....

 

 

That was already explained in a recent thread:

 

But which laws he is bound by depend upon his legal standing as a seller. In a private sale (i.e. not in the line of business) the seller is not bound by SOGA.

 

 

... as was the definition of a business that the law provides.

 

[MrShed]

 

That was already explained in a recent thread:

 

 

 

 

... as was the definition of a business that the law provides.

 

 

Oh dear Perple - in the one instance I agree that I am wrong and you are right, and you feel it neccessary to dredge out the quotes to rub it in?

 

Grow up!

[perplexity]

Oh dear Perple - in the one instance I agree that I am wrong and you are right, and you feel it neccessary to dredge out the quotes to rub it in?

 

Grow up!

 

 

The mature way to settle that would have been to agree at the time, 6th October, but if you rather intend to append the previous thread with an appropriate apology, that's a step in the right direction.

 

[buzby]

I have no problem with you and I having a different opinion. But what is the rudeness and mockery for?

 

C'mon now. If I wanted to be rude and/or mock, I would do so and you'd be aware of it. As I wasn't doing either, I'm perpexed why you should think so.

 

You made a statement about courts upholding your viewpoint, and I was pointing out the opposite and the reasons why. I'm afraid if you cannot cope with a general debate, you'll have your sensibilities well-trodden in future.