eBay sellers – have you ever backed out of a sale?

if this had been a forum thing then you could apply your fluffy misty eyed moral rules, but the minute this went on ebay then it became a business transaction.

Indeed. Why is it you think a business transaction on ebay doesn't follow the normal rules for a business transaction everywhere else?

The point you seem to be missing is that when an auction finishes there is a contract between the buyer and seller – the seller isn't allowed to pull out at that point. The only reason people do that on ebay and not in real shops is because they (think they) can get away with it. The seller pulling out at that point is specifically against ebay rules.

that shit looks like a golfer

Likewise. I guess we would score the same on a Rorschach test.

Nope you are wrong the seller has the right to cancel the sale until the item is received by the buyer.

Which is why the item is still the responsibilty of the seller whilst it is in transit, until it hits the mat of the buyer it is the property of the seller.

And his to do with as he sees fit, cancel auction or not.

As has already been stated the buyer enters a contract by buying the seller does not.

tim – I don't think you are right – the whole point of a contract is its binding on both sides. On an auction both sides are bound once the deal is made

Tj, you're wrong. the deal is only completed when the recipient receives the goods. intention to trade means nothing. and there was i thinking you knew about consumer law

Tj

I could be wrong mate my undrestanding of it was that it was yours till the buyer receives it.

Receipt (signing for of the parcel) being the transfer of ownership bit.

Like any shop a seller can pull out of a sale if they want to, ebay might talk the talk in their t+cs but they cant enforce them.

Otberwise what happwns if your garage burns down before you post said bike bit, or it gets lost in the post.

It is fair to say i wasnt applauding the whole business just mocking the usual stw over the top reaction.

Btw psycle has bought bits off me, and been a generally nice chap, it is fair to say he has never eaten any of my children*

*of which i am aware

thanks Tim.

An Australian Court has held that ebay consitutes a contractual offer rather than an invitation to treat so my guess would be that it is a contractual offer in the UK too.

EDIT: which means I agree with TJ.

An Australian Court has held that ebay consitutes a contractual offer rather than an invitation to treat so my guess would be that it is a contractual offer in the UK too.

Is that a legally informed guess?

What do they call a court with kangaroos in it again?

No legal training but know enough that Australian law is based on English law (it was a colony) so the position is likely to be similar subject to different ebay terms and conditions etc in the two countries.

mefty – Member
No legal training but know enough that Australian law is based on English law (it was a colony) so the position is likely to be similar subject to different ebay terms and conditions etc in the two countries.

Are you making this up? Our law is based on Norman law, but I think in the intervening years things change a bit.

Aside from the whole action of the OP, if you buy something from a shop and they're out of stock, they will automatically cancel your order after a set period of waiting and if they have taken your money, refund you. I can't imagine ebay is any different. If someone buys something off you out of the local paper, then when they come round to collect it you can't find it, they can't take you to court over it.

steve – I thought it was a binding contract once agreed as its an auction. However I wasn't sure hence the " I think"

Is an auction not different to a shop transaction? Its not an offer to treat but a binding contract once agreed?

Interestng stuff. So an ebay deal is binding on the buyer but not on the seller? sounds odd.

Just spoke to Mrs TJ who is the (legal)brains of this outfit.

She says its either binding on both sides or none.

Its an invitation to treat when offered for auction, the buyer offers to buy it. Once the sellor has accepted this its a binding contract. The sellor has agreed to sell to the highest bidder at the end of teh auction.

So the sellor can withdraw up to the end of the auction even if bids are made but once the auction is completed there is a binding contract made.

Howwever – this is internet expertry and old knowledge.

Just spoke to Mrs TJ who is the (legal)brains of this outfit.

She says its either binding on both sides or none.

Can she cook and clean as well?

Like any shop a seller can pull out of a sale if they want to

A shop can't if they have stock and money has changed hands – likewise with an ebayer and an ended auction.

It is fair to say i wasnt applauding the whole business just mocking the usual stw over the top reaction.

Exactly which part of telling him it's illegal, immoral and against ebay rules (and that he has unrealistic price expectations) is over the top?

if you buy something from a shop and they're out of stock, they will automatically cancel your order after a set period of waiting and if they have taken your money, refund you. I can't imagine ebay is any different.

Indeed not. However what a shop can't do is cancel a contract (which is what there is once money has changed hands in a real shop) because they decide they don't like the price you're paying when they have stock. No different on ebay, where a contract is made when an auction ends. I suppose psychle could have claimed to have lost it or that his garage burnt down, which would doubtless be taken as reasonable excuses – at least that was the case before he started his thread, and such an action with something quite so unusual would also have made it rather difficult to sell it to the sort of people who might consider paying what he seems to think it's worth.

Actually on the last point, you have to remember that for something rare and "collectable" like this, it's only worth what people will pay. I'd suggest that whilst it might have been worth £200 at some previous point in time right now it's worth £90.

Higgo – Member

"Just spoke to Mrs TJ who is the (legal)brains of this outfit.

She says its either binding on both sides or none."

Can she cook and clean as well?

Nope = thats my role 🙁

Here is a link to a report of the case (link).

I think this was decided on the basis of the law of equity and you can look this up in Wiki but the following quote illustrates that the general principals were established they apply to most common law jurisdictions.

As with the geographical transmission of any cultural artifact, direct English influence over equity weakened with time and distance. However, the widespread import of printed opinions provided a corrective force, however long delayed. As the colonies gained political independence, each of their legal systems began drifting from the original in an irreversible departure from the English way of making laws and deciding cases. Nonetheless, each former colony acknowledged the reception of the common law and equity of England as a vital source of their jurisprudence.
The comparative question is an easy one to pose. Did English equity develop maturity early enough that all of its derivative systems necessarily tended toward the same doctrines because based on exactly the same set of general principles? Or did the split-offs of any of the colonies occur somewhere in the middle of its development so that substantial permanent differences resulted? One equity? or many?
The answer generally accepted in America, the earliest of the English colonies to gain independence, is the former, that the outcome of a case to be decided today upon principles of equity should be expected to be substantially the same whether decided in the UK or the US. The reasonableness of the belief enjoys strong historical support.

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.

A shop can't if they have stock and money has changed hands – likewise with an ebayer and an ended auction.

If money had changed hands, which it hadn't… and still hasn't at this point…

I suppose psychle could have claimed to have lost it or that his garage burnt down, which would doubtless be taken as reasonable excuses

Indeed… maybe I should've just lied eh? 😆

I don't even play a lawyer on TV, so my opinion on this is worth exactly what you paid for it, but I'll give it anyway – Mrs TJ has that spot on, that is exactly my understanding of the situation. Anybody who thinks differently is making the erroneous assumption that ebay exists outside of normal contract law (and I'd be extremely surprised if any of the people taking that line have any more legal training than I do).

"A shop can't if they have stock and money has changed hands – likewise with an ebayer and an ended auction."
If money had changed hands, which it hadn't… and still hasn't at this point…

Wrong – did you actually read what you just quoted? The money changing hands bit only applies to a shop, as that's the first point at which both sides have agreed to something. An auction (in real life or on ebay) is different – contract is formed when auction ends. If you check carefully, you'll find you agreed to that when you agreed the ebay T&Cs when setting up the auction.

Indeed… maybe I should've just lied eh?

Well you could have, though you really ought to have quoted the whole of that sentence rather than snipping (and maybe go back and read it now) if you think that would actually have been a good idea – the bit at the end about making it rather difficult to sell on later.

Do you want a bigger spade?

nope…

P – aren't you Australian?

psychle – Member
bite me

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

I'll just go and see if I can find that spade for you.

Yep, I am… British to though, dual citizenship (amazing who the UK government will let in eh? even morally bankrupt eBay scammers like me… the Daily Mail should do something about it really!)

aracer – Member

psychle – Member
bite me

I'll just go and see if I can find that spade for you.

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

Wow, good work Clouseau! 🙂

Not quite quick enough on the edit 😉

OK, my understanding on this is

any price is called an "invite to buy", even if advertised a shop does not have to sell at this price, however once payment has been recieved the contract them becomes binding.

aracer – Member
go to hell you eBay scamming douche bag!

How dare you say that to me! I shall be reporting you to the mods immediately, expect a banning post haste you cad!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
😉

😆

aracer – Member

The money changing hands bit only applies to a shop, as that's the first point at which both sides have agreed to something. An auction (in real life or on ebay) is different – contract is formed when auction ends

ok assuming that what everyone has said is correct regarding the differences between sales and auction outcomes is correct.

you are forgetting that this is not a house, or a car, but in fact a small piece of a bicycle.

all this flannel is irrelevant tbh, how many "you didnt sell me that saddle like you said you would" ebay court cases have you heard about?

any? er no

ebay can impose whatever t+cs they like, but they cannot and will not enforce them.

the albeit bitter truth is that the buyer could possibly take the seller to the UK small claims court, but if he wins, (and i would be amazed) he would incur costs that would be prohibitive to his initiating his claim in the first place.

"i lost the shifters"

"er ok case dismissed"

bonk goes the gavell

ebay can impose whatever t+cs they like, but they cannot and will not enforce them.

Depends what you mean by "enforce".

the buyer could possibly take the seller to the UK small claims court, but if he wins, (and i would be amazed) he would incur costs that would be prohibitive to his initiating his claim in the first place.

You seem to misunderstand how much it costs to use the small claims court.

"i lost the shifters"

So long as you haven't started a thread on STW about it…

"but the nasty man said he didnt want to sell them any more, and and it might have been him in the internet as well…"

Bonk goes the gavell……

Please educate me as to the costs of the small claims court from sweden?

Losing them wouldn't be an acceptable excuse before a court, the claimant could source equivalent components from elsewhere and claim the difference between what he paid for the "new" ones and what he would have paid had the seller not breached the contract.

EDIT: Costs are generally awarded against the person who breaches.

"but the nasty man said he didnt want to sell them any more, and and it might have been him in the internet as well…"

I should think there's a perfectly decent audit trail there. Remember civil law is based on balance of probabilities – I'd suggest it's quite clear which way the balance goes on this one.

Please educate me as to the costs of the small claims court from sweden?

Fairy nuff – I thought we were talking hypotheticals here given psychle does seem to have agreed to send them (I think he's seen the light, though I'm fairly sure he also realises there's no way he could now relist them and get a better price – the point being there are ways of addressing things like this without involving the courts).

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

362 at the last count.

*Strokes chin

Chinny reckon?