Anyone sued anyone on ebay?

[Raymond Lin]

Answering a few of these, but this is in NO way meant to be advice for the OP. Just general points on the law.

Technically, he did mitigate his loss by selling it on and getting as much as he could for it. Whether or not he mitigated it as much as he could have (by setting a reserve for instance) is more of a grey area and where some of the arguments would come into. What if it was an item that lost value as time went on, so the earlier you sell it, the more you'd get for it, so even without a reserve, selling it asap would get more than waiting with a reserve and potentially not selling it? Of course the opposite could be the case if the value would increase and so selling it asap is not mitigating loss properly.

To your PPS - yes, theoretically the buyer could, as he has suffered loss due to the seller's breach of the contract. This is the reason why almost all business contracts specifically exclude liability for indirect loss, to avoid being liable for secondary issues like this. To weringo's point, the aim of the law is to put the parties in the position if the contract had been properly performed (the point you stated regarding it never have happened is the case for Tort), so if a party has suffered loss due to the other party's failure to perform the contract, then they should be made whole. However, sometimes the loss suffered is pretty remote (hence when evaluating damages, rules of remoteness are taken into account too) so wouldn't be recoverable necessarily, and the contracts then specifically exclude liability to be on the safe side.

I can go into more detail, but enough of a primer on contract law as it is Suffice to say, it isn't as straightforward as the OP makes it out to be and there are a number of other factors to be taken into account as well. Overall, really not worth the headache given the amounts involved here.

I am sure a lot of these academically on paper you could and one could argue until the cows come home about it. But back in the real world, over £100? This is almost as strange as academically you can be arrested for stealing your own coat.

 

[Sudden]

I am sure a lot of these academically on paper you could and one could argue until the cows come home about it. But back in the real world, over £100? This is almost as strange as academically you can be arrested for stealing your own coat.

Oh yeah, completely agree - hence the last point I made about it really not being worth the headache

But I've also seen people sue over much smaller and odder crap!

 

[glenimp617]

Ebay and paypal are untouchable. They are like the digital mafia.

They actually owe me £250, yet it was me who was threatened with the debt collectors!

I wish I'd have kept a record of the item and numerous emails as I'd love to send them an invoice each year with added on interest

 

[Mr Jack]

Apparently they had just changed their mind which is not an acceptable reason to me.

No ebay did not accept their reason which is why they issued a strike.

The court does not need to side with eBay here, they can make their own judgement on whether the buyer could legitimately cancel. Unlike others, I think pursuing loses is entirely reasonable whether they're just a hundred quid or not, however I suspect that this will not be the clear cut case that you imagine: after all, when the contract was cancelled you were in materially the same position as before the contract was cancelled. You seem to be banking on the buyer simply rolling over at your threat, however if they do not do this you may find yourself picking up legal costs if the court does not buy your line. What the court will think I have no idea, and since you're asking about court stuff on a bulletin board for people who want to expand their manhood through the magic of overclocking, I'm going to conclude you don't either and, unfortunately, the costs involved in actually getting sensible legal advice for a claim involving such a small sum are likely to not be worth it.

Or, in other words: let it go.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

I find it amusing that you’re annoyed at the seller for “changing his mind”, then state you’d be happy if he’d explained he’d come in to financial hardship?

How do you know he hasn’t come in to hardship and simply didn’t want to say?

Or he could be a top earner with a Gucci belt, some skinny jeans and a good drip? You’d never know if he’s telling you the truth either way.

Let it go.

 

[Tefal]

Wouldnt this be a national news paper headline level case if it won?


"Now you can be SUED for CANCELING your Ebay order!!!

Buyers delete Ebay accounts in droves"


Sort of thing?

 

[Illuminist]

If you have the time and are willing to spend the money then do it. Take the **** for every penny you can legally squeeze out of them.

Then you **** in a Pringles tube, pour in half a pint of water and give it a stir before freezing it and posting it to them.

Hahaha

 

[.Lethal]

To be honest i feel the OP hasn't given enough detail here.

Was the item listed as an auction ? buy it now ? or Offers ?

Was the original buyer paying the market rate for said item ? or was £100 more ?
I can't remember but did he give a reason why he didn't wanna pay ?

Then 2nd buyer, did they pay less than the market rate for the item ?

If you really feel hard done by, don't send the item top the 2nd buyer. Tell em you broke it, relist it for the higher price you want, you might get a mark on your account but you'll have your £100 and the mark won't make any difference in the future cos your an amazing ebayer

OP has repeatedly said auction.

market rate to OP is irrelevant (they don't want to answer) the difference between sale 1 and 2 is £100, due to this difference they want to take seller 1 to court and attempt to destroy their credit rating and recover the monies from sale 1.

OP already has enough bad traits, let's not suggest any more bad idea's.

We're unlikely to get any more answers as OP feels like GD doesn't understand him or his motives after they tried to backtrack on what was said in OP.

 

[Thekwango]

8 pages in and this is my fav comment.

8 pages?! Only just broke into the 5 page for me

 

[Deleted member 651465]

8 pages?! Only just broke into the 5 page for me

Get with the program, we’re on page 2.

 

[spoffle]

Wouldnt this be a national news paper headline level case if it won?


"Now you can be SUED for CANCELING your Ebay order!!!

Buyers delete Ebay accounts in droves"


Sort of thing?

With a picture of him holding the item in question up next to his face with the biggest tittylip he's ever had.

 

[arknor]

does the OP sue tyre kickers as well for wasting his time

 

[Rroff]

the aim of the law is to put the parties in the position if the contract had been properly performed (the point you stated regarding it never have happened is the case for Tort), so if a party has suffered loss due to the other party's failure to perform the contract, then they should be made whole. However, sometimes the loss suffered is pretty remote (hence when evaluating damages, rules of remoteness are taken into account too) so wouldn't be recoverable necessarily, and the contracts then specifically exclude liability to be on the safe side.

In my experience it will often come down to putting both/all parties back in the position they were before the contract and the court won't really care about anything else. OP might get somewhere with relisting fees if they'd ended up paying twice but generally won't get much consideration for special offers, etc. (at best small claims) and almost certainly won't get far with anything in regard to cash flow unless can show real damages.

 

[Sudden]

In my experience it will often come down to putting both/all parties back in the position they were before the contract and the court won't really care about anything else. OP might get somewhere with relisting fees if they'd ended up paying twice but generally won't get much consideration for special offers, etc. (at best small claims) and almost certainly won't get far with anything in regard to cash flow unless can show real damages.

Yeah, that's a good point as well. I've been to court a fair few times representing a company at small claims when I was in Litigation and it depends a lot on the judge you get. Some will care more about the 'law' specifically and others will take a more general 'fairness' approach and play quite fast and loose with the law/civil procedure. Lot of uncertainty at small claims. Sometimes we almost hoped it would go to the High Court just so we know at least that the law would be properly applied. lol.

 

[Thekwango]

Get with the program, we’re on page 2.

No one likes a show off

 

[koooowweeee]

does the OP sue tyre kickers as well for wasting his time

He stabs footballs that land in his garden.

Imagine living next door to OP

 

[Ice Tea]

This thread needs a Poll before it runs out of steam , take it to court or just take it on the chin.

 

[Maccy]

@Energize you could raise a Civil Money Claim - https://www.gov.uk/make-money-claim

But I think as others have said, it's a waste of time and effort IMO.

 

[bris]

The legal answer is yes you can sue, Ebay sales are as legally binding as any other sale, being an auction sale makes no difference to that, in fact it make it even easier to sue.

The key to a succesful claim would be how you mitigated the loss, this means reselling for the best price you can get.

You did this by reselling at auction which gives a market value. You can also add the fees to the claim.

Do it properlty and you will win, but for £100 is it really worth the hassle.

 

[Energize]

So as a resolution to this thread, after receiving my letter before action he finally came around and offered to meet me half way which I accepted. I suspect this is half him being spooked by court documents and half due to the fact that straight after refusing to pay for my auction he managed to buy a similar item at the lower end of the market price.

So no need for court action. I just don't understand the mentality of bidding on an auction and then refusing to pay, it's not bloody Amazon!