Interesting eBay Lawsuit - Page 4

I realize that the law and the life are two different things.
My brain always takes a shortcut through common sense, alas I am wrong.

Why these implied, not even verbalized "contracts" have their day in court could be only explained by Pickwick Club heritage. That moldy bunch of "gentlemen-code" bullshit left over from British empire.

Thank god we don't all live in the world of dkzzzz law, where no agreement is binding unless it is written down. I can imagine the stories:

Man sits down at a cafe and orders a coffee. Server brings him his coffee. Man drinks coffee and stands up to leave. Server: "sir, you must pay for that coffee." Man: "says who?" Server: "sir, there is an agreement implicit in our conduct that you must pay for the coffee." Man: "show me where that agreement is written down." Server: "um, well, gee, uh, err, um, well uh, okay then, I guess you don't have to pay."

dkzzzz - the reason that oral agreements are enforceable is because of common sense, not in spite of common sense.

I disagree with your interpretation of common sense.

The example of bizzaro world should look like this:

The man sits at the table in a restaurant.
Server brings a menu.
Men orders cup of coffee.
Server comes back and apologies for having no coffee left in the shop.
Customer (his voice braking):"But, but your menu clearly says 4 dollars for Irish coffee?"
Server:" Yes it does sir , but we sold it all today to other customers".
Customer (with tears in his eyes): " But I want coffee so much!"
Server:"Sorry sir. I guess you out of luck here"
Customer : "I will sue you restaurant for breach of implied contract ! I'll see you in court!"

OMG!

Once again, you are conflating concepts. The menu is an offer to start a discussion, not an offer.

Customer: Oh, I see you have coffee, I will take a cup (offer)
Waiter: Yes, sir. Right away. (acceptance and contract)


Customer: Oh, I see you have coffee, I will take a cup (offer)
Waiter: Sorry, sir, we are out (no acceptance and, therefor, no contract)

But in the real world, the law works exactly as you are implying common sense would dictate. Customer is SOL, and it's up to him to decide whether he wants to order something else, come back a different day, or take his patronage to a restaurant with better inventory control.

The buyer won the plane case today in the papers and the seller is still spewing for some reason aka the othe guy offered more!

I might be wrong but I think the case has persuasive value no matter the jurisdiction from which it originates. Depending on how desperate I am, I am willing to use any case, be it from India or even China.

It is very unlikely that a bread and butter contract enforcement action in a foreign country will have any precedential value in US courts. Basically, the facts of the case make this of some limited interest to folk who care about Australia, e--bay, and planes. However, there are not really any new legal principles at play.

A US court would look to controlling US statutes and/or regulations and applicable decisional precedent to address a comparable case.