[Closed] eBay sellers - have you ever backed out of a sale?

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.

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?)[b] but because of its imperial status.[/b]

...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...

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.

[img] [/img]

[url= http://cgi.ebay.de/SRAM-ESP-9-0-SL-Set-10TH-ANNIVERSARY-9-f-neu-/260641814184?pt=Sport_Radsport_Fahrradteile ]Sram 9.0 $500 BIN[/url]

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.