Ebay - Been Conned and feel very very silly - any advice?!

[perplexity]

... if many Sellers thought all the law quoted by Perplexity was invoked they would run a mile!

 

That I completely agree with, one of the most sensible things to be said about the issue. This, of course, is why eBay is so criminally reluctant to tell its members the truth.

 

Do you realise that for the first few years since 1997 when the Distance Selling Directive arrived, there was no advice from eBay, nothing whatsoever, nothing to overtly acknowledge that the relevant rights and duties exist? It was not before 2004, when a high court in Germany ruled that an eBay "auction" is not excepted that they began, reluctantly, to concede that a sale on eBay is a distance contract and the auction issue was a poor excuse for the ignorance; several of the member states where eBay sells never saw fit to implement the auction exception anyway, and eBay's own policy was always to do everything possible to avoid the usual liabilities of an auction house.

 

The preceding part of the sentence is a terribly flawed or misleading assumption

 

Surely when you sell with eBay you agree to their terms of selling ....

 

The first thing to point out is that the consumer protection laws apply to a User Agreement to supercede the terms; agreeing with eBay is not a valid excuse, to ignore the law.

 

It was also pointed out, already, that the application of the Distance Selling Regulations, for instance, depends on the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller, for it is this above all else that ought to tell us that a sale on a web site is a consumer contract, especially when the Agreement prescribes what the contract is to consist of, for it is this that the DSRs and the SOGA apply to, the contract, not a person.

 

It might also be pointed out that the lion's share of complaints about eBay crop up because a member failed to read the terms of the Agreement, that they then appear to disagree with as soon as they realise what a term really is. It could also be said, therefore, that they would run a mile if they took the trouble to read the thing before they subscribe, for when they do eventually read the thing it is not so unusual that the mile is run. This is especially true of buyers who believe that eBay offers more by way of protection that they get from the law. I was naive enough to believe that this was true, once upon a time. Then I found out that eBay and Paypal offer less than the law, by way of protection, not more.

 

This, if you want to know, is what makes me so cross about eBay: I would rather not be taken for so much of a fool.

Edited May 21, 2011 by perplexity
trivial

[terriersaregreat]

Are postings 49 and 50 directed at me? Not sure, if so, my advice is at para 2 that if you check your Paypal account you will find the Sellers actual name and email address. So if going to report the problem to the police etc there is at least a starting point.

[Dragons Dennis]

Perpy, bend over. I am sending green and mean to give you a right tickle in the cobwebs.

[Kraken1]

The first thing to point out is that the consumer protection laws apply to a User Agreement to supercede the terms; agreeing with eBay is not a valid excuse, to ignore the law.

 

This isn't a real sentence, is it? The gods of plain English are weeping. If you can rephrase so it makes sense I'll try and tell you if you are right.

 

It was also pointed out, already, that the application of the Distance Selling Regulations, for instance, depends on the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller, for it is this above all else that ought to tell us that a sale on a web site is a consumer contract, especially when the Agreement prescribes what the contract is to consist of, for it is this that the DSRs and the SOGA apply to, the contract, not a person.

 

Wrong. Again.

 

The application of the Distance Selling Regulations, for instance, depends on the contractual relationship between the purchaser and the seller... There. Fixed.

 

"for it is this above all else that ought to tell us that a sale on a web site is a consumer contract"

 

Nah. Don't be daft. Not all sales on a website are consumer contracts, and the contractual relationship between the parties is probably the last bit that determines whether a transaction is a business to consumer one.

 

Perplexity wrote:

The preceding comments I have made are terribly flawed and misleading

there. Fixed for you. Don't mention it.

[perplexity]

The application of the Distance Selling Regulations, for instance, depends on the contractual relationship between the purchaser and the seller... There. Fixed.

 

No, it need not, and you ought to know better than to lie about it.

 

No part of the Distance Selling Regulations, nor the definition of a consumer provided by section 210 of the Enterprise Act requires that a distance contract has to be a contract to purchase.

 

The moot description of the contract is a "contract concerning goods or services concluded between a supplier and a consumer", a member's subscription to User Agreement for instance, which is not an agreement to supply the service in return for a monetary consideration, but is a distance contract.

 

As per section 8.3 of the DSRs , the User Agreement therefore provides that

 

We will commence supplying our services to you as soon as you accept this Agreement. Unless you and eBay agree otherwise, you will not be able to cancel this Agreement under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (or any equivalent legislation in your jurisdiction) once the supply of the services has commenced.

 

 

It is of course because a sale on a website may or may not be a consumer contract, that the OFT Guidance tells us that the application of the Regulations depends upon the contractual relationship between the website provider and the seller.

 

If you disagree with that I suggest to address yourself to the OFT or whoever the author of the document would happen to have been.

 

 

.... and the contractual relationship between the parties is probably the last bit that determines whether a transaction is a business to consumer one.

 

To the contrary, sellers on eBay have to subscribe to the terms of the User Agreement before they sell, not afterwards, and the terms of the Agreement prevail, for all the members. An eBay seller is not allowed to implement terms to contradict the rules made by eBay, the purpose being to ensure that all the listings are equivalent.

 

When you refer a dispute between a buyer and seller to eBay's auspices, all the members and the all the listings are supposed to be treated on the same basis. If you would rather not be treated in the same way as any other member, as a part of what they like to call a community, find another place to buy or sell.

[Kraken1]

you are making the same mistakes as normal perpy. you don't know what a contract is, you can't read, and don't understand the law. Maybe some sleep would help?

[Kraken1]

oh, and:

 

No part of the Distance Selling Regulations, nor the definition of a consumer provided by section 210 of the Enterprise Act requires that a distance contract has to be a contract to purchase.

 

Rubbish. Do you even have any idea what you are typing? A purchase can exist without a contract? Really? Ye gods you are dangerous.

[perplexity]

 

Nobody said that a purchase exists without a contract.

 

Instead of heckling, Kraken1, your time might be better spent on learning to read.

 

The eBay User Agreement is a contract, and you can't say that nobody agrees with that, for the Agreement describes itself as such, so every eBay member to subscribe to the agreement agrees that the Agreement is a contract.

Edited May 22, 2011 by perplexity
3rd paragraph added.

[terriersaregreat]

I really do not want to get involved in this argument but am deeply concerned that whatever happened to Perplexity has made him so anti eBay.

 

We are supposed to be helping the OP how does this argument help?

 

There are millions of perfectly happy eBayers out there who often communicate as we do on this forum. Unfortunately there will always be those who know how to use and bend the law. Look at the banks, sorry had better not go there.

 

Many eBayers have great satisfaction from using eBay. There can be bad experiences it's true. Suprizingly Perplexity I've had some very dishonest Buyers and have lost out. This is life, nothing is perfect, but I think I'm right in saying that by posting on this forum we are hoping that someone may have had a similar problem and has a solution or at least a bit of advice.

 

I am sorry that you have had a bad experience but in a way it is insulting to those of us that sell on eBay who are genuine considerate, responsible and proud of our reputation.

 

The law is so very confusing and is regularly being challenged, good, but in the main I doubt that eBay would have been so successful if Buyers were so disappointed and let down as you seem to be suggesting.

[perplexity]

We are supposed to be helping the OP how does this argument help?

 

 

If that refers to your own posting, terriersaregreat, I fail to see that it helps at all.

 

It was the member who started the thread, not me, who told us this:

 

Obviously I will be contacting ebay and paypal but know from experience that I will get no help what so ever....

[terriersaregreat]

Evidently I'm of no help for this victim, so I'll say goodbye, and good luck.

[Kraken1]

Perpy, as pretty much everyone in the legal world and on this site thinks that your advice is tosh of the highest order, all we can do is heckle you. We've tried correcting you but it ain't any good. You are beyond help. if your advice wasnt so dangerous we'd make you the site mascot or something.

[perplexity]

Did I ask for help?

 

My purpose is to persuade the consumers at large to help themselves and if they do I am glad of that. Nothing else was required by me expect for facts if they happen to be available. Opinion was already available and not worth as much to me as the nothing to be paid for it.

 

You tried correcting but it ain't any good because your correction is demonstrably wrong. Amen.

 

My advice, is usual, is to rely on the law, not eBay nor the myth, and if that is danger to the crooks who set out to deceive I am glad that it is.

 

When I began to buy on eBay, circa 2003, there was never a problem with knowing who the seller would be. Geographical addresses were routinely supplied by email at the end of an auction, by eBay, so why did the practice cease, notwithstanding the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations?

 

Work it out for yourself, if you reckon that eBay is honest.

[Kraken1]

the only one that is wrong here, is you, chuckles. You might not have asked for help, but you clearly need it. The best thing consumers to do to help themselves is to pay no attention to your advice at all.

[perplexity]

The best thing consumers to do to help themselves is to pay no attention to your advice at all.

 

The shame then that you just can't help yourself.

 

The convincing way to pay no attention would be to shut up and go away.

 

[Kraken1]

I wish I could. I started posting on here because a family member took bad advice from a forum and got themselves royally shafted. The least I can do is point out your errors to your victims. I also take comfort in the fact that many others seem to do so as well.

[Muffintop]

Theft definition. Dishonestly appropriates property with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.... Its theft and comes under the fraud act. Police have a dedicated e bay liaison officer and it needs to be reported officially. keep any evidence you may have.. good luck.

[perplexity]

I wish I could. I started posting on here because a family member took bad advice from a forum and got themselves royally shafted. The least I can do is point out your errors to your victims. I also take comfort in the fact that many others seem to do so as well.

 

-----

 

Instead of purporting to give advice to an online forum, the better suggestion would therefore be the one that I make, to be advised by the legislation and the track record, for actions speak louder than words.

 

The challenge remains, to identify a victim, any consumer, ever, anywhere, who acted against a seller because of a breach of the consumer protection legislation but was "royally shafted" by a judge who refused to apply the legislation because a seller who undertook to supply goods, otherwise than free of charge, claimed to be "private".

 

Hearsay fails to count.

[Kraken1]

"The challenge remains, to identify a victim, any consumer, ever, anywhere, who acted against a seller because of a breach of the consumer protection legislation but was "royally shafted" by a judge who refused to apply the legislation because a seller who undertook to supply goods, otherwise than free of charge, claimed to be "private"."

 

Examples already given. You just didn't like them because they trashed your arguments. Wiggle all you like, the quality of your advice is clear when challenged.

[perplexity]

Examples already given. You just didn't like them because they trashed your arguments. Wiggle all you like, the quality of your advice is clear when challenged.

 

Please desist.

 

The challenge remains, to identify a victim, any consumer, ever, anywhere, who acted against a seller because of a breach of the consumer protection legislation but was "royally shafted" by a judge who refused to apply the legislation because a seller who undertook to supply goods, otherwise than free of charge, claimed to be "private".

 

The challege is not to start a squabble, yet again, of no use or interest to the consumer at large, by obliging me to deny, yet again, a false assertion.

[Kraken1]

I feel like I've been asked to point out a red car, have pointed to a dozen in a car park and have been told that they are not cars. And are not red.

 

Readers can make their own mind up based on your posts. I reckon I know what they'll think.

[perplexity]

Here is a link to the Private Car Sale thread for those in need of a red car, so to speak:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?303907-Private-Car-Sale

 

Three cases were identified there: Davies v Sumner 1986, Tamimi v Khodari 2009, GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton & Anor 2005, none of which was a consumer who acted against a seller.

[Kraken1]

You really are odd. I'm guessing your reading ability is on a par with your writing.

 

Dear readers, just read the cases. Ignore perp.

[perplexity]

Do you know what? I am not at all so surprised if a member of your family lost a case, if this is the way they conduct themselves. Do they turn up to a court of law, expecting to instruct a judge to ignore the adversary, with nothing to plead, apart from the insult?

 

I fancy that an impartial observer would rather be impressed by the fact that member of your family was "royally shafted"; with all your attitude and all your advice, you failed to protect your member. No member of my family was royally shafted, though I did have a friend in the habit of annoying judges in the same way, expecting in vain to succeed but with not so much more than that to present, deliberately ignorant of friends, including myself, who advised against the folly.

 

You seem to fail, miserably, to understand what Davies v Sumner and the subsequent Stevenson v Rogers was about.

 

In view of a car sold (if you will) by an individual not in the business of selling cars, to a dealer whose business is cars, in the absence of a third party, nor an offer to sell the car to anybody apart from the one particular dealer, would your advice have been that this could count as the sale of the car by a business to a consumer?

 

I would not have expected that such case could succeed, notwithstanding the fact that is the sort of a situation that is qualified by precedent.

 

What then has this to do with eBay, where the sale of goods is obviously not so "purely private", which is to say that nobody else was involved but the buyer and the seller? The most significant point to note is that a sale may be counted as a consumer contract but with no public advertisement of goods for sale, which is not the purpose of eBay, nor what in my opinion would amount to a consumer contract. The general purpose of consumer law is to ensure that equivalent terms apply to the entirety of a public market, not to interfere with a contract concluded in private, of no particular concern to anybody else, apart from the two of them.

[Kraken1]

My my, aren't we a stressed little bunny?

 

I'll let folk read all the advice and make their own minds up. I dare say they'll note posts like the one above and judge accordingly, for example probably noticing that I previously said that a family member followed poor advice like yours and got shafted; I got involved to sort out the mess afterwards.

 

As for the rest of your comments, I doubt many readers can understand what on earth you are going on about.

 

Now breathe before replying, and ensure you wipe the spittle off the keyboard before typing. that's s good boy.