Interesting eBay Lawsuit - Page 2

There's a contractual relationship between the seller and eBay, but eBay is not a legal agent of the seller, per eBay's User Agreement.

Dude, you've already shown that you know absolutely zero about US law - why do you continue to opine on the subject. Your response could not be more wrong.



DnW - you may be right - without knowing all the facts it's hard to say. However, none of that would stop me fron arguing that as a defense attorney (notice I said that that's what I would argue and not what a court would find) - you can't disagree with what I would argue.


Let me throw this out there too - there may be something in the ebay user agreement (and I'm not sure if there is) that says that all ebay related disputes have to be resolved through ebay (or some other non-judicial forum) - i.e., something akin to an arbitration clause in a regular contract that says that all disputes have to be resolved through AAA arbitration.

"We have no control over and do not guarantee the quality, safety or legality of items advertised, the truth or accuracy of listings, the ability of sellers to sell items, the ability of buyers to pay for items, or that a buyer or seller will actually complete a transaction. "

This is what you sign when you join ebay. Any judge who can read should have trown that law suit out of court long time ago.

+1 The buyer is not suing eBay, he's suing the seller directly. Edit: after rereading the article, I'm not quite sure the eBay buyer can get specific performance. If the other buyer accepted the offer prior to the eBay buyer's acceptance, then he would probably be getting the plane. However, the seller might be forced to forfeit his profits. In any case, the seller is liable for damages to one of the parties. This is, of course, based on US contract law -- there might be minor differences in Australia contract law. They shouldn't be vastly different though, as both of our legal systems came from England.

Exactly. The only somewhat binding agreement between seller and buyer was furnished by ebay and that agreement states that NOTHING is guranteed.
Once you accept that nothing is guaranteed you have no law-suit.

There is no other agreement between buyer and seller other than that provided by ebay. There is no leagel;y binding agreement between these two parties.
They have as much case as if someone refused to sell you his shoes on SF.

Is this not clear enough?

That's in what's called the indemnification section. If you have taken a basic contract class, you would've known that it does not pertain to the contract executed between the two parties, i.e. the buyer and seller. Once again, the buyer is not suing eBay.

Could you refer me to the contract between two parties?
Where is that text, please?

Um, no. No agreement is furnished by ebay. The agreement is directly between buyer and seller. All that's required for a contract is: offer, acceptance, consideration. Once you have all three - you have a contract. If the listing on ebay is considered an offer and the bid is considered an acceptance (obviously there's consideration) - you have a contract.

I'm just scratching my head as to why I'm explaining elementary contract law to someone who obviously just doesn't get it.


Exhibit A evidencing that dkzzzz knows absolutely zero about contract law.

This is absolutely true. I know nothing of it.

To my uneducated mind: if there is no explicit and written contract that both parties agreed to....: there is no contract.

Auction listing (offer) + bid (acceptance) = contract.

So, if you know nothing of it, then why do you make a post in this thread, that, in its tone, appears to be absolutely certain of the information expressed in the post?

Thank god society is not ordered under the dkzzzz system of contract law where people are not bound by the agreements they make unless those agreements are reduced to writing.

Actually most agreements "reduced" to writing that is why you have a job.

Actually, most agreements are not "reduced" to writing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that 99.9999999999999999% of agreements are not reduced to writing. Every time you buy an ice cream from the ice cream man you are forming a contract (he "offers" the ice cream, and you "accept" by paying for it = contract) - and that contract is not reduced to writing. Millions and millions of contractual transactions occur every day that are not put into a writing.

Again, this is further proof that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

If all agreements were reduced to writing, my job would be a million times easier.

While it is true that many agreements (contracts) are reduced to writing and certain contracts, to be enforceable, must be reduced to writing, a simple agreement to buy and sell need not be reduced to writing to be enforced. A classic "I will sell you a widget for $50.00, I will buy your widget for $50.00" contract need not be reduced to writing to be enforceable.

Of course, here, the internet communications are the necessary writing.

Oh...what's the point...