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?
I'm not sure if there really needs to be a case for it. Ebay makes no qualms about bidders and sellers entering a contract, and contract law is pretty well defined as it is.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
.. is that it means there is no out for buyers to change their mind either :)
Good news for sellers....
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
The legal status of auctions considerably pre-dates electricity, much less the web. I have a feeling that if you tried to argue that there was some difference between a web auction and a traditional auction in a US court, you'd get pretty much the same result this guy did.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
That's exactly the same way round.
...that's the same way round.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
The title says 'In Australian an eBay sale is a Sale', one of many delightful typos we can expect from our 'editors'. He is pointing out this typo in a subtle, yet humorous manner, apparently too subtle for you.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
No, the contract is formed prior to the consumption. The terms of the contract, however, are not completed until the food have been received. (From what I understand, consumption is more or less irrelevant from a legal standpoint. What if you took your food to go?)
Correct. This is a failure by the restaurant to carry through on its responsibilities under the contract. If the restaurant either states or implies a certain level of quality or service, you have every right to expect that level of quality or service. Of course, a restaurant may disagree with you, in which case it would take a judge to decide if the restaurant really did carry out it responsibilities under the contract, or if you were making unreasonable demands upon the restaurant that are not part of the implied contract.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but who the hell really is around here? We have so few lawyers, it's shocking.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Well, I know that Australia are ahead of us because of the time difference, but this is ridiculous!
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
you do not seem to understand reserve on ebay.
it's exactly like this...
you:"Ohh how much is that?"
Seller:"I wont tell you, start throwing money at me and I'll set you know when you go over it."
it encourages "fishing" and no auction I have ever seen that uses reserve even fits your fantasy land example. they all are usually set incredibly high and the guy is simply fishing for a price instead of having the balls to post the auction at the starting bid of what he is willing to take.
It does not matter anyways, the amateurs list items at any price higher than $0.99US. Those auctions generate bidding frenzies every time.
... a similar situation. It was a Kia SUV as far as I remember. After the end of the auction the seller told the highest bidder that he must be crazy if he thinks he will really sell the car for such sum (something like 1000USD or something, 10x less than its worth). The buyer got pissed off and took him to court. He won. I don't know where the case is at the moment, whether the buyer got the car or something else. All I know, that the amount of people looking for such "bargains" (some of them are created by accident - pressed ENTER too quickly, or the seller sucks at computer skills) increased. If such a seeker finds such a bargain he threatens him to take the case to court. On the other hand, the amount of cheaters, like the seller in the story, decreased.
I think that in general, such precedence is a good thing. Just to give a lesson that you can get punished for cheating on the Internet.
Generally speaking though, you should cease consuming the meal when you become aware that it's unsuitable. If you clean your plate it's generally considered that the meal was acceptible.
I don't read AC A human right
You have the right idea, but technically that's not correct. Consideration merely refers to the exchange of something of value in order for the contract to be valid. This is mainly to distinguish a contract from, say, a promise, which is (usually) not legally binding. If you promise to do something you're not obligated to do it, but if you promise to do something and someone hands you something of value in exchange for making that promise you may well have entered into a contract. It doesn't have to be adequate compensation to be consideration. See, for example, the legal concept of the peppercorn.
You're confusing consideration with the doctrine of unconscionability. That is where the court will refuse to uphold a contract because the terms are considered grossly unfair to one side. It is not often that this happens, as the courts don't like to interfere in the ability of people to enter into contracts, even bad ones. However, a court will occasionally feel that a person may not have realized what he was signing when he entered into the contract, and this is an option that is available to the court in order to protect the interests of a party that was supposedly taken advantage of.
Also, for what it's worth, a mistake on the part of the seller is not usually a reason for voiding a contract. Only if the court feels that it would be unconscionable to enforce such a contract would it be voided (for example, if you somehow accidentally wrote $10 instead of $100,000 on the sale of a house). If you simply made a mistake as to the value, or even made an honest mistake on a lower order of magnitude (selling a $10 item for 1 cent, for example) the court would most likely enforce it.
That's exactly what they're hoping for, tho -- auction fever. Same reason lots of stuff starts at "1 cent, no reserve". That will get tons more bids than the same item started at a fair price, and the final price will usually be higher, too.
Of course, having been bit a few times by minimum bids, most sellers now set shipping/handling at what they REALLY wanted to get for the item, to ensure that they get "paid" regardless.
Personally, I don't look at "reserve not met" auctions, since as you say I want to have SOME clue what the seller really thinks it is worth, and not have to piddlefuck around hunting for the reserve price (which in my observation, usually proves to be higher than the actual value of the item).
That's why I like Buy It Now. Tells me what the seller expects to get, and if I like the price, great; if not, I don't need to waste my time.
(Actually, I hate auctions.. I want the price to be the price, not have to guess at it nor have what I pay partly determined by other people's guessing at the price... which is what bidding really is: *guessing* what someone will pay in the end.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I agree reserve sucks, but I do think their are plenty of other reasons for a reserve.
1) judge demand for a custom product, I may need $500 to build one, but I could mass produce at $200 each, if I get interest lower...
2) local sell, friend is willing to buy my car, set a reserve of $5000 sell it to him for the highest bid if the gain isn't enough to risk ebay fraud.
3) re-listing costs money, if I later decide I would part with it for $4500, but my highest bid was $2000, don't bother.
It does piss me off when they have a reserve set at a value over 95% of a "buy it now" price. That is clearly to judge demand at a lower price, but what a waste for the buyer.