Re: Help: outbid but still won!

On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:30:41 +0100, "michael adams"
<mjadams25@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Peter Parry" <peter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote

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.

You are extraordinarily repetitious but I hope you won't mind if I
only answer this next point once.

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.

Of course they are; as is every trader and every private seller in
every venue. It requires no court case for that.

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.

The only thing to test, in some cases, is how the various obligations
are to be met. In most it is so straightforward that no
interpretation is required.

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.

It is exactly the point and one you seem determined to avoid.

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,

If eBay, as a matter of policy, tried to remove from their membership
all those who decided to enforce their legal rights against traders
not complying with the law how long do you think it would be before
the OFT and TS became involved?


and on what grounds ?

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

An unfair term is one that creates a significant imbalance in the
parties? rights under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer,
contrary to the requirement of good faith.

A term is most likely to cause an imbalance if it has the effect of
reducing the consumer?s rights under the ordinary rules of contract
or the general law. For example they either stop consumers from
making certain sorts of legal claim against the business which they
could otherwise have made, or give the business rights against the
consumer that it would not otherwise have had.

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

How about actions which are bound to succeed?

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.

If a sale on eBay was an auction (which it isn't) a higher bid
eliminates an earlier one. Cancellation of the higher bid does not
re-instate the earlier one. If it is an agreement to sell the
condition (of being the highest offer) fails when a higher offer
appears and cannot be re-instated without a counter offer. There is
nothing to wriggle out of.

As it is the trader selling the goods has (almost certainly) failed
to supply the necessary information on right of return so the seller
can, for no stated reason, repudiate the contract and recover all
their costs and require the seller to recover the goods at their own
expense. It is pretty simple really.

"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.

Nor for ignorant sellers to try to pretend the law doesn't apply to
them.
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ok, lets clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?
    ... There is no clause in the EULA which states that one who ... "fair use" rights are abridged. ... Such a contract would be ... the EULA disagrees with the law (established plainly by the U.S. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Electronic Publication
    ... No copyright law, no intellectual property. ... Is it a violation of your fair use rights that you ... >> intellectual property those people have decided to buy from the DRM user ... I disagree with most restrictions on freedom of contract, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: I need s.a.a advice. What would YOU do...?
    ... Send the facts to eBay. ... there is no contract here. ... Remember your business law class from ... Seller made the offer to sell on eBay. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Motherboard
    ... What law says this? ... the terms of a valid contract that they have freely entered into. ... legal contract from the seller, say it is properly signed and valid. ... - you might know of a bullet proof precedent set in a ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Tentative offering of a Gmail Group
    ... myself of my statutory rights", because there's no contract there, as ... Each work must be released into the public domain ... I had understood that this placement into the 'public domain' was an irreversible shaking-off of the rights accorded by statutory copyright law. ... contracts, ...
    (alt.usage.english)