Slashdot Mirror
In Australia, An Ebay Sale is a Sale
syousef writes "An eBay sale is a sale says an Australian New South Wales State Judge in a case where a man tried to reneg on the Ebay sale of a 1946 World War II Wirraway aircraft. The seller tried to weasel out of the deal because he'd received a separate offer $100,000 greater than the Ebay sale price. The buyer who had bid the reserve price of $150,000 at the last minute took him to court. 'It follows that, in my view, a binding contract was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that it should be specifically enforced,' Justice Rein said in his decision." I haven't found anything like this in previous discussions; have there been similar decisions like this handed down in the US, Canada, or Europe?
It has already happend a few times here in Poland that people were obligated by court to sell the auctioned stuff (cars) for the bid amount, that was usually waaay lower then market prices (2 or 3 times lower).
On the other hand - whenever there is a super low bid (lets say sum equal to a few dollars) because somebody forgets to set a minimum price, the court usually decides that the auction is a salesman's mistake and voids it.
Ah, legalese often confuses non-lawyers, and for good reason...its highly technical and specific.
An auction is a *type* of sale. The auction itself is merely a method of attaining a price. The contract of sale is created on the falling of the auctioneer's hammer, or similar event. If a reserve price is not reached, the goods may be sold to the highest bidder, or withdrawn. Whether or not an online 'auction' falls under the common law definition of an auction is highly dependent upon each country's law...and in this case, I believe the judge says that it does, which might be a departure from existing Australian Common Law.
The interesting thing about this case is that the Judge gave the winner the airplane. Usually, if you win a court case like this, you only get money damages unless the goods are unique or very rare. A World War II Wirraway plane, 1 of 5 left in the world, certainly qualifies for the legal remedy of "specific performance".
The perhaps most famous case was in Gemany, were some car dealer aucioned off a new a car, but it got a pretty low price, about 25% of its worth. The seller tried to renege on the contract, but a court decided that a binding offer had been made and the car had to be sold to the highest bidder at the auction end-price. As far as I remeber no appeal was allowed because the case was obvious. So in Germany an eBay auction offer is a legally binding offer and if the highest bid is low, you have to sell for that price nonetheless.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Models of vehicles that were build during the war years (because they were for the war) are still referred to as being a war model even if they were still in production a year later just due to association. The planes in question were apparently made from 1939 - 1946, which is definitely a war model: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Wirraway
No, it's not a mistake; it's the foundation of almost all contract law. The whole point of a contract is to guarantee future performance, be it delivery of goods, money, or service. If the contract isn't in effect until the delivery has happened, what good is the contract? As a somewhat degenerate case, if the contract isn't in effect until the money has changed hands, it would be impossible to perform a credit card transaction for more than $25 (look at the bottom of the document you sign). It would, in fact, be impossible to have a credit card, since you would claim that you didn't owe Visa any money; your contract was void until money changed hands.
The point of purchase transaction is a special case of contract; the exchange of goods for money itself serves as the contract, as opposed to a written agreement specifying the terms of the contract.
In the case of eBay - according, at least, to the rules promulgated by eBay, and dependent upon a US court upholding them as valid - the contract is in effect upon bid. That's what the bidder agreed to when submitting the bid, and the seller agreed to when offering the item for auction (subject to reserve price). It is no less well-defined than an exchange of money; there's no reason to think it's somehow more ambiguous.
The point is, you can't make contracts only effective upon exchange of money, since the very idea of a contract depends upon its authority over future performance.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...