Anyone sued anyone on ebay?

[Jez]

This thread is quite funny, i read the original post thinking woooo i wonder what this could have been....is he a high end car dealer, has he sold a boat, i wonder what could have been that bad to have had a material affect on cashflow to the point that the OP has become quite upset.

Then we find out that it is about __£100__

LOL, its 100 quid...let it go

 

[wildman]

I am sure that sales of goods on ebay in the Uk fall under the consumer contracts regualtions which in this case would not help the OP's crusade to screw someone over

Cancelling goods and services
The Consumer Contracts Regulations also give you key cancellation rights when you enter into contracts at a distance over the phone, online, from a catalogue or face-to-face with someone who has visited your home, for instance.

That being said I sincerely hope this massively backfires on the OP and he ends up even more out of pocket. This would be karma and I would laugh a lot.

 

[montymint]

This thread is quite funny, i read the original post thinking woooo i wonder what this could have been....is he a high end car dealer, has he sold a boat, i wonder what could have been that bad to have had a material affect on cashflow to the point that the OP has become quite upset.

Then we find out that it is about __£100__

LOL, its 100 quid...let it go

compounded that it was only £100 because he didn't put a reserve on the second auction!

 

[Armageus]

Can I sue someone for time spent reading this thread?

Yep - loss of a potential £100 that you could have earnt while reading it

 

[Bug One]

If you have a non paying highest bidder, can't you normally give the next highest bidder the sale? I'm sure I've done it that way in the past.

 

[Energize]

I am sure that sales of goods on ebay in the Uk fall under the consumer contracts regualtions which in this case would not help the OP's crusade to screw someone over

Cancelling goods and services
The Consumer Contracts Regulations also give you key cancellation rights when you enter into contracts at a distance over the phone, online, from a catalogue or face-to-face with someone who has visited your home, for instance.

That being said I sincerely hope this massively backfires on the OP and he ends up even more out of pocket. This would be karma and I would laugh a lot.

Doesn't apply to private sellers dude.

If you have a non paying highest bidder, can't you normally give the next highest bidder the sale? I'm sure I've done it that way in the past.

Tried to do that and would have accepted the hit, however there was a technical issue preventing that on ebay's side unfortunately.

Do you actually think that here, in GD, where we hear about the ebay idiots at least twice a week, we are defending this guy? No, nobody is. We're collectively telling you to stop wasting your time, his time, ebay's time, the courts' time, our tax money, and whatever else I could think of to prove my point, for the sake of a few quid. Ask yourself this: is your time really worth that little? what if he fights back? That £100 will become the most expensive £100 you're likely to ever have to get back.

Don't be that guy. Cmon.

People are attacking my position to the extent that it gives that impression, it's alright to say it's probably not worth the time and effort, but to suggest that trying to get money back after someone defaulted on an agreement is wrong or immoral is definitely defending this guy, the County Courts were created for exactly these small disputes, they even have a category for claims less than £100. I thank the useful advice that some posters have given but there seems little point in posting anything else in this thread because people are just trolling.

 

[Steeps]

I bet anyone who's ever featured as a seller on Bargain Hunt is now extremely worried they are going to get a court letter through the post because the items they sold and featured on the show didn't make a profit at auction. The BBC could rake back £1000's in production costs!

 

[LOAM]

Tried to do that and would have accepted the hit, however there was a technical issue preventing that on ebay's side unfortunately.

Well surely then your gripe/issue is with eBay? You should be asking them to honour the original reduced fee as their issue prevented you from benefitting from the second highest offer.

 

[booyaka]

Tried to do that and would have accepted the hit, however there was a technical issue preventing that on ebay's side unfortunately.



People are attacking my position to the extent that it gives that impression, it's alright to say it's probably not worth the time and effort, but to suggest that trying to get money back after someone defaulted on an agreement is wrong or immoral is definitely defending this guy, the County Courts were created for exactly these small disputes, they even have a category for claims less than £100. I thank the useful advice that some posters have given but there seems little point in posting anything else in this thread because people are just trolling.

only 1 troll here....You.

You are setting out to specifically try and get a CCJ against someone who you deem to have "cost you money".
The issue has been dealt with by ebay within their rules/regulations. Trying to take someone to court for "changing their mind" is just ridiculous.

We are all aware of what the county courts are created for, why they are here etc - they are not here for you to put frivolous claims in against someone. At best you could "try" and claim the cost of the original listing fee that it cost you, however to then try and claim he cost you £100 cause the item sold for less the 2nd time is ridiculous. Stop wasting court time for such a silly claim.

You should have simply request the cancellation as the buyer hasnt paid, you'll get your fees back every time from Ebay - did you do this?

 

[Diddums]

People are attacking my position to the extent that it gives that impression, it's alright to say it's probably not worth the time and effort, but to suggest that trying to get money back after someone defaulted on an agreement is wrong or immoral is definitely defending this guy, the County Courts were created for exactly these small disputes, they even have a category for claims less than £100. I thank the useful advice that some posters have given but there seems little point in posting anything else in this thread because people are just trolling.

Did anyone say it's immoral?

Pretty sure the unanimous opinion is that you're wasting your time.

Give it up, move on, get on with your life, be a happier person for it. Didn't cost you anything other than a bit of inconvenience.

 

[Jono8]

Sounds to me like he was going to overpay by £100 and you got annoyed he twigged before you sent it.

If his offer was a reasonable and proper price for said item, why did it then sell for £100 less?

 

[ubersonic]

I sold a product on ebay for a decent amount of money and then the buyer backed out which I contested leading to a strike on his account

In which case eBay and Paypal will have refunded your associated fees, and your loss is £0.

the cost and effort of going to court is so small at a mere £25

Plus his costs which you will have to pay after you get laughed out of court.

it seems like a small price to pay to destroy this guy's credit rating even if I never get compensated for the loss he caused me.

Unless he or the courts find this thread in which case you will also have the costs of his malicious prosecution countersuit to deal with...

 

[pingwing]

how on earth does one achieve that? You'd have to handle it to get it through at which point isn't it kind of defeating the purpose?

There in lies the beauty of the challenge, carefully squatting up to the front door, propping a letterbox open with ones little finger, letting rip a glorious poo and some how getting away from the messy situation makes all parties appreciate the amount of work that goes into such an act...

 

[MadMan-JaMeS]

The thread is 7 damn pages long and we still don’t know what the item is.

 

[bJN]

People are attacking my position to the extent that it gives that impression, it's alright to say it's probably not worth the time and effort, but to suggest that trying to get money back after someone defaulted on an agreement is wrong or immoral is definitely defending this guy, the County Courts were created for exactly these small disputes, they even have a category for claims less than £100. I thank the useful advice that some posters have given but there seems little point in posting anything else in this thread because people are just trolling.

The thing that you seem to be missing versus what most people in this thread are seeing is that you still have (or had) the item in question. The non-payment arbitration was concluded by eBay as per their terms of service. Had you sent the goods and then entered into a non-payment dispute you would have more grounds for something to follow up on because you are at that point out of pocket. Without wanting to sound harsh, take a step back and take the blinkers off, you've tunnel-visioned yourself into causing hassle for this unnamed individual and have come across as a right plank on here in doing so. People are actively trying to help you not waste your time, they aren't defending the actions of the other party but are condemning what you hoped to achieve. I also don't think you've answered whether the agreed price was above what you'd expect to pay, which isn't helping peoples' view of your predicament.

 

[Boge]

Unhinged vs Well Balanced? I can agree with that.

Well said bJN.

 

[weringo]

A lot of dodgy legal comments in this thread. OP probably has a decent claim on the basis that a contract is formed as a result of an auction (s57 SGA 1979) and the the buyer breached that contact by backing out. Ebay's own T&Cs don't appear to override any of these principles. OP can prove financial loss by subsequently selling the item for less and also incurring time having to relist the item / faff about with the original buyer.

Whether it's worth pursuing for the sake of £100 is another question. In principle I agree that there are a lot of time wasters around and if more people pursued these claims, those of us who aren't time wasters would be far better off. However OP seems seems to be unnecessarily angry about the whole situation and would probably be better off moving on.

 

[ik9000]

courts always look to see that action is proportional and a claim merited in the first place. I'd be amazed if this holds water. A pointless exercise out of spite - which the OP has pretty much acknowledged.

 

[Raymond Lin]

A lot of dodgy legal comments in this thread. OP probably has a decent claim on the basis that a contract is formed as a result of an auction (s57 SGA 1979) and the the buyer breached that contact by backing out. Ebay's own T&Cs don't appear to override any of these principles. OP can prove financial loss by subsequently selling the item for less and also incurring time having to relist the item / faff about with the original buyer.

Whether it's worth pursuing for the sake of £100 is another question. In principle I agree that there are a lot of time wasters around and if more people pursued these claims, those of us who aren't time wasters would be far better off. However OP seems seems to be unnecessarily angry about the whole situation and would probably be better off moving on.

Flip it around.

If you are a buyer, you agree a price with a seller.

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration = contract.

Right?

That's the standard defacto base we start on. However, before you send any money you decided not to buy it. The seller hasn't sent you his item and then he sue you? What for? he still has the item! You both still at Square 1, back to where you were before the agreement. What loss is there to you as a buyer? What loss is there to the seller? Both sides are exactly where they were before.

That's what the court would try to do, to put the party back to the beginning. Since the OP still has the item, he suffered no loss. No loss = no claim.

 

[weringo]

Flip it around.

If you are a buyer, you agree a price with a seller.

Offer, Acceptance, Consideration = contract.

Right?

That's the standard defacto base we start on. However, before you send any money you decided not to buy it. The seller hasn't sent you his item and then he sue you? What for? he still has the item! You both still at Square 1, back to where you were before the agreement. What loss is there to you as a buyer? What loss is there to the seller? Both sides are exactly where they were before.

That's what the court would try to do, to put the party back to the beginning. Since the OP still has the item, he suffered no loss. No loss = no claim.

If the seller agreed to a price that was less than the market price and then backed out, the buyer has suffered a loss equal to the difference between the market price and the agreed price. Its the same point