I would guess Chinny is probably right.

So how many ebay based small claims cases have their been for small bits of bicycles then?

How many people have decided not to send their small bits of bicycle after the auction finished? How many of those went on an internet forum to publicise the fact?

It is worth noting that Australia only created it own supreme court rather than using the UK privy council in 1986. So I don't think my assumption is that unreasonable though hopefully a lawyer will come along to correct me or not.

This is not correct. After the Australia Acts, the status of the Privy Council as last court of appeal was removed for Australian litigants. The High Court of Australia was not newly created at that time – it was created by the Constitution of Australia Act and existed since Federation. (Actually a couple of years after – it took the Federal Parliament a while to agree on procedural laws).

Pointing to an Australian decision abut eBay is vaguely interesting because English (and other common law) courts are likely to take a similar decision but not really helpful for two reasons: firstly, Australian decisions aren't binding on English courts, and secondly, this is such a hoary old question that there will have been twenty zillion billion English decisions about when a contract is formed at auction.

In any case, Sale of Goods Act specifically spells it out: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_8 TJ is absolutely right – the buyer's bid is an offer, the termination of the auction (by hammer or by time) is acceptance and a contract is formed.

Who bears the risk during transit depends on the common intention of the parties, the specific terms of the contract (if any) and whatever the default position (usually in Sale of Goods Act) is. Who bears the risk doesn't determine who owns the property.

You must be a real lawyer, konabunny?

Interesting point there:

until the announcement is made any bidder may retract his bid

that would suggest that whatever ebay's policies might be, you can retract a bid at any time for any reason on a UK ebay auction, since English (or Scottish – I'm guessing it's the same for this) law applies.

1) No, I'm not, and even if I was a lawyer's advice outside a retainer is (generally) worthless, so I should be ignored like any other pillock with an internet connection, and if anyone has a more credible explanation, believe that instead!

2) I don't know, I was wondering about that second bit. Perhaps the eBay rule could be justified by some sort of complementary contractual obligation exists between eBay and the buyer. In other words, when you sign up and promise not to yank bids, is that a contractual promise which creates an obligation on top of what statute provides? I'm stabbing in the dark here.

Here is a link to what ebay says regarding retracting bids. They say that you enter into a contract when you bid which seems to conflict with the Sale of Goods Acts. However, there is no suggestion that the Seller can enforce the assumed contract but rather the "penalty" for retracting before the timit limit appears to be negative feedback and ebay can take action against your account (I presume suspend or cancel it) which would not conflict with the Sale of Goods Act.

As far as KB comments are concerned on my citing an Australian case, I stand corrected on the creation of the Australia High Court as the Supreme Court for federal law but it is also true to say that the UK Privy Council remained the ultimate appellant court in matters of state law until 1986.

In addition, I never suggested that an Austrlain decision is binding on a UK court, I was suggesting that as the laws in both countries developed from a common heritage it was a useful indication. However, to say that gazillions of decisions have taken place which "trump" that common heritage is too simplistic as absent specific Australian authority, the Australian Courts can be influenced by foreign decisions, especially the UK's, although I make no suggestion that they would be binding.

However,the Sale of Goods Act appears to trump all of this pseudo intellectual masturbation, it appears TJ was right and I was a bit of a pillock with an internet connection. But the sun is shining, so I am off out!

I had something similar to this happen to me a few years back.

I was bidding on a frame on eBay, I placed my max bid and left the auction alone, as I usually do, and was outbid late in the auction. Fair enough, seemingly.
Then a regular STWer posted a thread about said frame (It was definately the same frame and person, no question) saying it hadn't sold for what he wanted so he "got a 'mate' to bid" on it. Shill bidding basically.
So I threw the brown stuff at the fan and scored a bullseye, and got an apology.
So anyway, some months later I saw this same frame on the classifides, sold by the same person, for a lot less than my maximum bid on eBay. Which brought a wry smile to my lips, let me tell you.

If I was the buyer in this case, I'd pay up and collect my goods. Then immediately see if I could turn a profit on it, before posting the link on this thread.
But am am evil, it has to be said….. 😈

I'll bid on that item Peter!

Perhaps we could get the price up to £250?

I'd pay £6 for them.

OK, I am a lawyer, but I'm not a specialist in Australian eBay law.

I'd have guessed there was a contract for the sale and purchase of the shifters. BUT, if psychle doesn't fulfill his end of the bargain, what has the buyer lost? If he's paid his money, he's lost the money. So psychle has to give it him back. Now, the buyer is in the same position as he would be if psychle hadn't double-crossed him – he has the value of a pair of horrid stars'n'stripes shifters. Psychle has the horrid shifters.

Has the buyer lost the benefit of getting the shifters cheap? Psychle thinks so, which is why he was considering welching on the deal. But it's not really clear that "the market value" of the shifters is different to what the highest bidder in an eBay auction is prepared to pay.

So I'm not convinced that there's much of a claim here. There may be liability, but it'd be tricky to prove loss.

The rememdy of "specific performance" of contracts, in which the seller is made by court order to hand over the goods, is not very likely to be granted by an English court in the case of said horrible shifters, although perhaps they're rare enough that it would. Don't know. 🙂

Now, the buyer is in the same position as he would be if psychle hadn't double-crossed him

Sigh… just to clarify, again, I have not double-crossed anyone and I have not ripped anyone off… I sent the buyer an invoice for payment on Saturday, interestingly (perhaps) he hasn't paid at this point…

Sigh… just to clarify, again, I have not double-crossed anyone and I have not ripped anyone off… I sent the buyer an invoice for payment on Saturday, interestingly (perhaps) he hasn't paid at this point…

Just to clarify

YOU were going to doublecross him but YOU got caught out.

Don't you just hate assh0les that back out of an ebay sale because their item doesn't sell for what they want:

Tossface Seller

I stand corrected on the creation of the Australia High Court as the Supreme Court for federal law but it is also true to say that the UK Privy Council remained the ultimate appellant court in matters of state law until 1986.

No – or at least, not quite. High Court of Australia is the ultimate court of appeal for all matters of law in Australia, whether they emerge from state or federal law. The Privy Council was the ultimate court of appeal but its decision was not binding because it was a UK court (is there even such a thing?) but because of its imperial status. A decision in England & Wales would not have been binding on an Australian court before or after the Australia Acts.

to say that gazillions of decisions have taken place which "trump" that common heritage is too simplistic as absent specific Australian authority, the Australian Courts can be influenced by foreign decisions, especially the UK's, although I make no suggestion that they would be binding.

I'm not sure where you're getting that claim/argument from because afaics no-one's made it. The point about there being no shortage of decisions about auctions and whether contracts have been formed is that if you're in England and trying to work the question out, there's no real benefit in searching for obscure decisions from the other side of the world and wondering how they might apply in your own jurisdiction because you can just refer to any one of the decisions which have been made in England!

The rememdy of "specific performance" of contracts, in which the seller is made by court order to hand over the goods, is not very likely to be granted by an English court in the case of said horrible shifters, although perhaps they're rare enough that it would.

Equity requires clean hands. Whoever would buy such hideous shifters is obviously a twisted individual whose hands could never be clean.

The contract would also be unenforceable in the courts – they would never regard the trade in such minging gear to be in the public interest. 😉

If you sell enough kit on there, it'll go full circle. I've sold more than my share of crap on there, didn't get what I wanted on a few bits, but some stuff has gone for silly money. The only reason I can think off is time of the month (and no, I don't mean Arsenal are playing at home, more like pay day). Send it, take it on the chin. You'll make it back, thats eBay unfortunately, should have stuck a reserve on it.
Just out of interest, what was you selling?

Pete G55 – very true. I've sold photographic kit which has gone for a fair bit less than its true worth. I just suck it up. I also sold an old, beaten up Belstaff jacket from the '60s to a Japanese buyer for £600. It cost him nearly £100 to have it shipped over too!

Just read through the whole thread, not seen the aforementioned article, but seems it takes all sorts.
To the OP – massive cock up on putting this up on here, should have just taken it on the chin, if the item was listed UK only and you had a foreign auction winner, just sent them a new invoice with silly postage charges. They either pay or dont. Their own fault for bidding on a UK only item. Free to relist if you have problems with original buyer. Problem solved. I'd agree with previous posters that this is the kind of thing that makes ebay a pain in the arse and sometimes not worth the hassle.

PeteG55

I don’t think it is a massive cock up telling everyone personally I think it is perfect to know what seller is like I mean how low can you get.

The Privy Council was the ultimate court of appeal but its decision was not binding because it was a UK court

WTF? A court existed but it's decisions were meaningless? I don't think so.

My memory is that it was the ultimate appeal court for the Commonwealth. No doubt a brief wiki at work will reveal all!

Its not up to the seller to get the cheapest quote. On Ebay I always knock a couple of quid on postage prices as to if I was selling them in the classifieds on here.

It would be up to buyer to arrange alternative delivery if he was not happy. Unless you send stuff overseas a lot you aint gonna know, I for one would not know!

OP did the right thing in the end, a bit slow to do so but all came well in the end!

So lets lay off his back 😆 I would still buy from him…!

WTF? A court existed but it's decisions were meaningless? I don't think so.

It helps if you read the other half of the sentence before flying off the handle…

The Privy Council was the ultimate court of appeal but its decision was not binding because it was a UK court (is there even such a thing?) but because of its imperial status.

…and once you've read it, it then helps if you think through what was written. The Privy Council advised the Sovereign acting in his/her capacity as King/Queen of Australia. It is not a "UK court" and that is not why its decisions were binding.

But please – let's have more discussion of Australian constitutional law when discussing some oogly plastic shifters! 😆

Uh…so what about the Judicial Committee?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC) is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom, established by the Judicial Committee Act 1833.[1] It is also the highest court of appeal (or court of last resort) for several independent Commonwealth countries…

In Commonwealth republics, appeals are made directly to the Judicial Committee…

Fair enough if Oz opted out in 1986 or whatever, but your theory above appears bunkum to me.

EDIT OK here we go:

Decline of Commonwealth Appeals
Initially, all Commonwealth realms and their territories maintained a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Many of those that became republics or independent indigenous monarchies preserved the Privy Council's jurisdiction by entering into treaties with the British Crown. However, over time many members began to see the Privy Council as being out of tune with local values, and an obstacle to full judicial sovereignty.

Australia
Australia effectively abolished the right of appeal from the Commonwealth Courts by the Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 and the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Act 1975, and from the State courts by the Australia Act 1986. The Australian constitution still has a provision allowing the High Court of Australia to permit appeals to the Privy Council on inter se questions; however, the High Court has stated that it will not give such permission and that the jurisdiction to do so "has long since been spent" and is obsolete,[5] and this possibility was finally closed by s. 11 of the Australia Act 1986.

So it would appear the Privy Council was a competent appeal court for Australia until at least 1968.

Sram 9.0 $500 BIN

I wonder how much these'll go for…

cynical – sorry, just noticed your post. Unfortunately for your hi-larious meme photos, you've not actually made any point whatsoever and I wonder whether you've actually read the thread attentively.

Australian appeals could have been taken to Privy Council (latterly with special leave of the HCA only i.e. not as a matter of right) right up until the Australia Acts in the mid-1980s, as I mentioned above:

After the Australia Acts, the status of the Privy Council as last court of appeal was removed for Australian litigants.

Australia is not and was not a Commonwealth republic. Australian appeals were to the Monarch-in-Council. Republics don't make their appeals to Monarch-in-Council because they don't have a monarch. The Privy Council advised the Sovereign acting in his/her capacity as King/Queen of Australia. It is not a "UK court" and that is not why its decisions were binding.

I had forgotten about this thread, just to close this off as I was the one who brought it up before we got involved in this constitutional detail.

I merely quoted the Aussie case because I found it on a search as the legal traditons were similar I felt it would give a pretty good indication of how someone from a similar tradition might find. That is all. When KB questioned the point, I was trying to point out that the Australian court would likely have taken into account many of the old UK cases that a UK court would too – i.e. a Aussie judge may well have considered many of the cases (old Uk cases) that a UK judge would do if faced with the same arguments based on the same UK cases. I was making no suggestion that the reverse position would apply – hope that makes sense.

The point about the Privy Council was merely an aside to illustrate the recent influence of the UK legal system as it is comprised of UK judges.

The law is effectively impotent when it comes to private individuals selling items in auctions via ebay or alike.

I have pulled out of sales after auctions before, for reason I wont go into. Everything was fine.