or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Interesting eBay Lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Interesting eBay Lawsuit - Page 3

post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkNWorn View Post
Oh...what's the point...

I was just asking myself the same thing.
post #32 of 53
The Australian court has required specific performance. The winning bidder gets the plane.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070803/...hsq0BGiJ0E1vAI
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
They have as much case as if someone refused to sell you his shoes on SF.


Actually, if someone on SF accepted your offer to buy his shoes (in other words, if someone put his shoes up for sale on the sale forum, you PMed him and said you would buy them, and he said okay) you would have a legally enforceable contract, and if he then backed out of the deal you could sue. It's just that it would obviously cost you a lot more to enforce such a contract than the shoes would be worth. But it's a real contract.

The only difference with eBay is that by listing them at a certain price, the seller has already agreed to sell to whomever makes the highest bid in the auction. And the court just agreed.
post #34 of 53
So if I list, let's say a car in a news paper and someone calls me and tells me :"I will pay your asking price" and I reply:" Sorry the car is already sold to the higher bidder" he/she can sue me in court and get my car because I listed it in a news paper?
This is a Pickwick club law, as in : "He took me for tea and cookies and I assumed it is a marriage proposal."
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
So if I list, let's say a car in a news paper and someone calls me and tells me :"I will pay your asking price" and I reply:” Sorry the car is already sold to the higher bidder” he/she can sue me in court and get my car because I listed it in a news paper? This is a Pickwick club law, as in : “He took me for tea and cookies and I assumed it is a marriage proposal.”
No. I really recommend that you not try this law stuff, some one may get hurt. The newspaper listing is considered by many courts simply to be an advertisement of an item for sale and, hence, an invitation to examine, consider, and offer. The potential buyer saying he or she is willing to buy is the offer. The contract is formed when the potential seller says he/she is willing to sell. Moreover, implicit in any advertisement is the possibility that one may not be the first in line to buy. However, even if the advertisement were to be deemed the actual offer, as is often the case for example with licensed commercial auto dealers, the sale of the vehicle to someone first is sufficient to, in effect, retract the offer.
post #36 of 53
a classified ad (and ads in general) is considered an invitation for offers. So the person calling you is making you an offer rather than accepting your offer. But if you say yes to his offer and then change your mind, he can sue. The difference with ebay is that by listing an item with an auction house, the seller has already said yes to the highest bidder (unless it is a reserve price auction and the reserve isn't met).
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
So if I list, let's say a car in a news paper and someone calls me and tells me :"I will pay your asking price" and I reply:" Sorry the car is already sold to the higher bidder" he/she can sue me in court and get my car because I listed it in a news paper?
This is a Pickwick club law, as in : "He took me for tea and cookies and I assumed it is a marriage proposal."



"Stay quiet and people will think you are an idiot. Speak and you will remove all doubt."
post #38 of 53
He could probably get a used version of the Restatement 2d on Contracts pretty cheap at any law school bookstore. But, probably would not help.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
The seller does not have to sell. Seller did not transfer goods to Ebay posession to sell it for him. Ebay is merely an agent here. Seller violated agents rules and thus have to pay final value fee that is all seller has to do.

What if you refuse to sell your house after offer was accepted by you. You would pay comission to your real esttate broker and walk away from the deal. Same here.

No, that's wrong in pretty much every particular.
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
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?

Wrong again.
post #41 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
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.

Still wrong. Contracts an be oral or written, explicit or implied. Even when no binding contract has been formed, one party can still have a claim against the other for what is known as "promissory estoppel" if he has disadvantaged himself by taking action, or refraining to act, in reliance upon the statements of the other.
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkzzzz View Post
Actually most agreements "reduced" to writing that is why you have a job.

At least you're consistent. Leaving aside the fact that odoreater's practice (as I understand it) generally doesn't turn completely on contract law, it's the fact that most contracts are not reduced to writing, or at least not a writing that clearly covers all contingencies, that generates so much work for litigators.
post #43 of 53
Indeed, lawyerdad and odoreater are 100% correct. Back when I did a more general practice, the vast majority of the contract disputes never had a writing that addressed anywhere near four-square the area(s) of concern raised by the client.

One of my favorites contract war stories (I was merely an observer) took place in NYC Small Claims Court. Plaintiffs sued defendant for, inter alia, breach of contract for selling a dog that died within hours of delivery. Defendant offered as a defense that the classified ad merely promised a dog. not a live dog. The judge understood that implied warranties had been breached. If one wants to observe the theater of the absurd of oral contracts, one ought spend a night in one's jurisdiction's small claims court.
post #44 of 53
Wow, I've missed a good one here. The only thing I'd add is that the Statute of Frauds provides that there are certain contracts that must be reduced to writing in order to be valid. Of course, this relates to U.S. law. No idea if this is the same in the winter is summer, opposite swirling toilet part of the world.
post #45 of 53
Just to toss a spanner into the works . . .

I think there is still an open question in most jurisdictions about whether state auction statutes and/or regulations apply to eBay transaction.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Interesting eBay Lawsuit