Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: "michael adams" <mjadams25@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 21:30:41 +0100
"Peter Parry" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t5lg43pj1ov15gr1c804j3sb8082e5vcuk@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 14 May 2007 00:17:12 +0100, "michael adams"
<mjadams25@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter Parry" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote
No they are not. If their rules are in conflict with consumer law
their rules fail.
Their rules aren't in conflict with consumer law. eBay didn't even
exist when those particular statutes were drafted.
Most companies didn't exist when the Sale of Goods Act was drafted.
It doesn't mean they have a choice in whether or not to adhere to it.
That's besides the point. The question here is whether eBay in its
present form, and some or all of its members are indeed subject
to every provision of SOGA and the DSR. Claims as to whether they
are or not made by posters on Usenet have no force or status in Law.
And as far AIAA are yet to be tested in Court.
Nobody is under any obligation to buy and sell on eBay. Just as
nobody is under any oblication to register with eBay if they
don't want to.
Nobody is under any obligation to use any shop - it doesn't remove
from all shops the need to comply with the law.
That's besides the point. The question here is whether eBay in its
present form, and some or all of its members are indeed subject
to each and every provision of SOGA and the DSR. Claims as to whether they
are or not made by posters on Usenet have no force or status in Law.
And as far AIAA are yet to be tested in Court.
eBay are a commercial organisation. They don't owe any duty to anyone
but their shareholders. Nobody has an automatic right to membership
of eBay, at any time, or for any period.
No one said anyone has a right to membership. If however eBay tried
to remove an existing membership simply because someone successfully
enforced their legal rights then that is a different kettle of fish.
....
A different kettle of fish in what way ? Who exactly is going to
initiate an action, against whom, and on what grounds ?
....
EBay would find it rather foolish to try to deny someone their legal
rights
Nobdy has any legal right to trade on eBay.
Nor does anyone have a right to trade illegally on eBay and eBays
rules cannot give them one.
....
That's begging the question. First its necessary to establish whether eBay
in its present form, and some or all of its members are indeed subject
to each and every provision of SOGA and the DSR. Claims as to whether they
are or not made by posters on Usenet have no force or status in Law
And as far AIAA are yet to be tested in Court.
eBay own the site.
eBays only legal responsibility is to their shareholders.
I don't really think you meant that as the statement is so patently
false.
....
Over and above a general obligation to obey the Law and not leave
itself open to prosecution of course. But its perfectly entitled
to terminate the membership of any member without having to
disclose any reason, simply because nobody can hold it to account
for terminating anyone's membership.
More especially the membership of those who are given to causing alarm
and distress to its members by threatening them with - in eBay's opinion
having maybe sought the opinion of Learned Counsel on the matter -
mischievous
and vexatious threats of civil actions and prosecutions which are
bound to fail, and similar annoyances
In fact were it shown to be the case that by giving succour
to vexatious litigants, and similar timewasters, rather than
showing them the door, eBay were harming their own profits, then
their Directors could be held liable, and subject to large financial
penalties.
eBays directors would certainly be shown the door if they tried to
encourage large scale illegality. We are not talking about vexatious
litigants, who are people who persistently and habitually engage in
legal proceedings without having a legitimate claim requiring
resolution, but those enforcing their legal rights. Someone who
habitually goes to court and wins is not a vexatious litigant but a
successful one.
Therefore in exercising their "right" - yes their "right" to choose
who they will and won't accept as members, eBay clearly arent "punishing"
anyone.
If eBay removed someone's membership simply because that member had
successfully enforced their legal rights then their position would be
untenable.
....
Who exactly is going to initiate an action, against whom, and on
what grounds ?
....
other
If the seller wants to be a prat the buyer is perfectly entitled to
take advantage of their ignorance of the law to recover all of their
money and costs. Quite simple really.
The seller isn't being a prat. The seller probably realises like most
people that if everyone took advantage of other people's ignorance of the
law to pursue every petty little grievance, then the machinery of the Law
would grind to a halt tomorrow.
Is this an excuse for the seller trying to deny the buyer their legal
rights? Most businesses manage to adhere to the law without any
difficulty. I can't see why it is necessary to defend those which
either through ignorance or malice do not.
....
That's begging the question. First its necessary to establish whether eBay
in its present form, and some or all of its members are indeed subject
to each and every provision of SOGA and the DSR. Claims as to whether they
are or not made by posters on Usenet have no force or status in Law
And as far AIAA are yet to be tested in Court.
....
People just
getting on with it, buying and selling to their hearts content,
without worrying two hoots about any laws.
So if you ordered and paid £500 for a new and working gizmo and were
delivered a used and non-function gizmo you would just smile and say
"Ah well, I'm stuffed, the seller was just getting on with it and not
worrying two hoots about any laws"?
....
I'm talking about someone bidding for a perfect Gizmo on eBay for £500,
and then buying another one before the auctions ends, winning the first
one, and then trying to wriggle out of paying for it. By any means
possible.
From a seller acting in good faith.
There does happen to be a difference.
"Ignorance of the law excuses no man: Not that all men know the law,
but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell
how to refute him" John Selden (1584 - 1654). That was a bit before
EBays time as well.
That isn't intended to offer carte blanche for opportunistic prosecution
of the unwary.
Selden there is merely referring to the fact that ignorance of the
law can't be used a defence by those already before the Court.
....
If you know your history you'll know that the Law was originally
based on markets and existing market practices not the other way
around.
The law was based around enforcing acceptable market practice and
prevention unscrupulous traders from doing otherwise. The Sale of
Goods Act was described in 1893 as an Act "passed for codifying the
law relating to the sale of goods" not as an act codifying existing
sharp practice.
I'm talking about the merchant law of the 13/14th century which was devised
by the merchants themselves to cover the growth in international trade,
which by its very nature was outside of the scope of any individual
national laws.
eBay is a new form of market and the Law will need to
accomodate itself to eBay, rather than the other way around.
Experience is showing the reverse is happening and the law is
increasingly favouring the buyer. If you have a venue with a
significant number of shonky sellers the solution of allowing them to
be above the law is neither the only nor best one.
There you go begging the question again. The seller in question isn't
a "shonky" seller - assuming that's supposed to mean he's unsavoury.
And other than that, I can only repeat what I wrote earlier - the
question here is whether eBay in its present form, and some or all of
its members are indeed subject to each and every provision of SOGA and
the DSR. Claims as to whether they are or not made by posters on Usenet have
no force or status in Law. And as far AIAA are yet to be tested in
Court.
eBay in Germany pushed very hard to allow sellers to be exempt from
some aspects of consumer protection law and failed completely.
Their sausages are also required to have a higher meat content than
those sold in the UK as well, I believe.
michael adams
....
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: Peter Parry
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- References:
- Help: outbid but still won!
- From: PaulH
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: Sylvia C Johnson
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: PaulH
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: michael adams
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: Peter Parry
- Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- From: michael adams
- Help: outbid but still won!
- Prev by Date: Re: Detailed Seller Ratings
- Next by Date: Re: Problem payer
- Previous by thread: Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- Next by thread: Re: Help: outbid but still won!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
