EBAY people - Please help me

[DMRick]

If there's a current acceptance of the auction price at the end of the auction, the seller's listing becomes an offer to sell, and you've got a legally binding contract.

Not that I think it would be a leagally binding contract anyway..but was there? An acceptance of the auction price? Just curious if you think there was. And of course anyone can sue at anytime..it's the question of ..would you win. I think not, not as long as no money was accepted.

 

[allyphoe]

they want the item or worth anyway.

You don't get the item or the worth. You get the difference between the contract price and the price you had to pay to get the same thing somewhere else.

I'd have to see case law to believe it it's a federal law (I'm open to reading it, if you have a reference).

Section 2 of the UCC. 2-328 deals with auctions, and at what point items and/or bids can be withdrawn. 2-711 and 2-712 deals with the issue at hand. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/

The UCC isn't Federal law (I'm not the "Federal offense" poster), but Article 2 has been adopted by every state (with the possible exception of Louisiana).

The girl said she made a mistake...was never a law against that, that I have seen.

Unilateral mistakes don't make a contract voidable. http://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/mutual.htm has a good explanation thereof.

Phoebe

 

[DMRick]

Please..show me where it says, this is applicable, if no money has traded hands. I've read it and read it..I can't see it.
I know it's late, and maybe I'm reading it wrong. but are you sure this isn't saying, if the buyer paid for the goods, and didn't get them, and has to buy them elsewhere, he can charge the seller the difference to get the goods..for the substitution of goods he didn't get?
As far as 2-328, isn't this talking about a live auction (I can't find the word "internet" there anywhere)? I know live auctions have very specific rules. I don't think that applies here. But then I'm not a lawyer, or a live auction person (although I do go to them), so I may not be reading it the way it is meant. I don't think my two semester Business law counts for much LOL.

I do appreciate your finding this...was good reading, but I still haven't seen anything that changes my mind on an internet eBay auction. Since I haven't seen anyone get sued over this yet, I've got to believe that a person can change their mind, by saying they made a mistake and although against eBay rules, I'm not reading it's against the law (federal, or otherwise).

As far as the Yale piece on mistakes..sounds to me like they aren't sure which mistakes should be allowed to be voided either LOL. Too many "depends".
Maybe in this case this ruled on a unilateral mistake, "the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable,"

Maybe the seller didn't realize she shouldn't have sold the items together. In any case, I think the conclusion is interesting. Thanks again.

 

[HayGan]

Under federal law, you're required to advertise your product or service and the terms of the sale honestly and accurately.

To falsely list or misrepresent items is a violation of federal law! It is clearly stated in the first statement. While it is prosecutable, law enforcement is less inclined to persue cases in which money has not changed hands.

 

[DMRick]

To falsely list or misrepresent items is a violation of federal law! It is clearly stated in the first statement. While it is prosecutable, law enforcement is less inclined to persue cases in which money has not changed hands.

Which federal law would this be, where someone realized it was incorrect, so didn't sell it? I thought it would only be bad, if a sale went through. How would this be against the law, if they didn't take any money for it? How would it even be prosecuted if there was no loss? It's not like attempted murder, where you can show intent. Like I said, this has been argued on ebay boards for years, but no one can show where something like this has been prosecuted.
IMO opinion, better for the OP to just go throught he eBay channels, and know this happens, and other than report her, there is nothing she can do.
There are worse things, like selling an empty nintendo box (careful wording on the ad)..talk about misrepresentation..and even that didn't get prosecuted to my knowledge. Heck, sometimes you actually pay and never get the item and still can't do anything, because they sent an empty box with delivery confirmation. She may be lucky her money was not accepted.

 

[allyphoe]

Please..show me where it says, this is applicable, if no money has traded hands. I've read it and read it..I can't see it.

Try a plain-English explanation: http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/ethi0400.htm
http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/aug02/ethi0802.htm

if the buyer paid for the goods, and didn't get them, and has to buy them elsewhere, he can charge the seller the difference to get the goods..for the substitution of goods he didn't get?

Your scenarios doesn't make the buyer whole, though, and the point of "cover" is to make the buyer whole.

Your scenario:
A wins an auction item for $100, and pays B. B refuses to ship. A buys the identical item for $150 from C, and pays C. A is now out $250 for the item B contracted to sell for $100. You suggest B owes A $50, meaning A pays $200 for the item, and B has been unjustly enriched by $50. Even if B refunds the entire $100, A has still lost $50.

My scenario:
A wins an auction item for $100, and tenders payment to B. B refuses to ship. A buys the identical item for $150 from C, and pays C. A is now out $150 for the item B contracted to sell for $100. I suggest B owes C $50, meaning A pays the agreed-upon $100 for the item.

As far as 2-328, isn't this talking about a live auction (I can't find the word "internet" there anywhere)?

An auction is an auction. Unless you can find something that says "except for internet auctions," general principles of contract law apply. There is no special internet law, despite common misconceptions to the contrary.

Maybe in this case this ruled on a unilateral mistake, "the effect of the mistake is such that enforcement of the contract would be unconscionable,"

Unless it would drive the seller into bankruptcy, I suspect not.

Phoebe

 

[DMRick]

My scenario:
A wins an auction item for $100, and tenders payment to B. B refuses to ship. A buys the identical item for $150 from C, and pays C. A is now out $150 for the item B contracted to sell for $100. I suggest B owes C $50, meaning A pays the agreed-upon $100 for the item.

Nice scenario and if it happened like that, I would agree. But it didn't Seller accepted no money..no money changed hands, and buyer still has the money.

An auction is an auction. Unless you can find something that says "except for internet auctions," general principles of contract law apply. There is no special internet law, despite common misconceptions to the contrary.

Can you show me a case where an internet auction has been treated the same as a live auction? I think you'll find most lawsuits ended up being under mail fraud. Even the big shill bidding case, was tried on mail fraud, as was the antique fraud here in Southern NYS. It started out being an auction issue, but it didn't pan out, and ended up being mail fraud. But even in those instances, money was paid and accepted.

 

[DMRick]

And I'm not really sure what this was suppose to mean..it's an entirely different situation..

http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/aug02/ethi0802.htm

As far as http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles/ethi0400.htm, yes he makes a good case..however, the seller did not accept the bid in this case. Once money had been accepted and she/he had not delivered, there would imo be a case. Unlike a "live" auction, the buyer has to wait to be told..ok, it's over. eBay has set this up themselves by allowing it. Unless the seller is habitual, eBay allows it to happen, setting a precident.

And in any case, I asked how this was breaking a federal law (that was the start of this conversation)..at the very most, it would be civil..would she win with no money changing hands? I doubt it, I think the judge would consider it a waste of the court's time. If this were a live auction, I would think differently, but it's not. It's a marketplace on line. Have you been on the eBay boards when this has been discussed ad nauseum? Most all of the places you have posted have been there. I'd love to see a lawyer familar with on line auctions tackle this. Even after all the discussions on the eBay boards, none have come forward, and no minds have been changed.

 

[bonzarella]

thanks for all the help. I heard from her this a.m. and looks like she will come through with all the items. All I wanted was a halloween costume for my kid, guess I better learn how to sew before next year. Again, THANKS

 

[DMRick]

LOL..glad to hear it, and it was fun checking out the do's and don't's. What was she NOT going to include and any idea why she changed her mined?

thanks for all the help. I heard from her this a.m. and looks like she will come through with all the items. All I wanted was a halloween costume for my kid, guess I better learn how to sew before next year. Again, THANKS

 

[montblanc]

I would hope you reviewed the seller ratings before buying. I'm very picky and look for 99.5% or higher customer satisfaction. Over 400 transactions so far and no problems...

The seller is obligated to fulfill the terms of the auction, error or not. Your seller sounds very disorganized and disinterested in customer service.

 

[bonzarella]

DMRick, first few items listed were some hats and a Disney Peter Pan costume. She wanted me to pick one or other. I was mainly interested in Peter Pan as we are going to MNSSHP Thought it would be neat to have the boys(5&6) as PP and Captian Hook, while I of course would be Tink. My sister gets to be Wendy. Thanks to the other posts I stated it was a binding contract. Don't know if that did it or she had a change of heart. I don't really care as long as I get the items. I think she was trying to alter the sale because the Disney costumes tend to draw good money. I realize it is easy to make an error but the listing was for several days, think it would have been caught before it ended. I just don't like being scammed, like everyone else. I have learned so many things from ALL the wonderful DIS people, can't thank you enough.