On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 21:37:33 +0100, Wigwam Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted, ebay item condition
Sent: 15 Jun 2005 14:57:56
Wiggers, Ebay is not equivalent to a livestock auction.
Yes, it is. Cameras don't go moo, but otherwise, the same. What does
eBay say it is? An online auction website.
Do read what I said. I said that in a livestock auction you generally
look at the animal and bid. The sellers seldom make claims about the
animal's capabilities. In an Ebay auction, they do, and nothing exempts
auctions of any sort from the laws of contract. If one party makes a
misrepresentation that the other relied on, the other has recourse.
Take care - not all country boys are dumb.
We'll return to this statement later.
In the latter,
you bid solely on the appearance of the animal. The seller does not
say:
"This heifer will deliver 50 gallons of milk a day, guaranteed". If
he
did, and it didn't, you would certainly have a legal basis for a
refund.
Yes, that's what a guarantee is. And any seller can add a warranty as a
selling point. If they do, they have to honor it. It removes risk from
the buyer and therefore the seller can get more for the item.
This is where you are mistaken. The word "guaranteed" is not the issue.
If you've said the cow WILL give 50 gallons, then the cow MUST give 50
gallons, or the law will enable the buyer to get his money back.
If the seller says "I think this animal could give 50 gallons of milk a
day, but I don't promise that" then too bad for you if it does not. It
is the buyer's job to parse the language and understand what, if any,
promises are being made.
Now you're changing the argument. All that the people on here have been
talking about is definite statements, not opinions. If you say: "This is
in full working order", then that is a statement of fact. If it isn't in
full working order, then whether you made the statement in error or
dishonestly, the buyer is entitled to recourse.
On Ebay, sellers make claims about their items in order to earn a
higher
bid. If the claims are false, the seller is either acting
fraudulently or
at best is mistaken. Either way, it's his fault, and the onus is on
him
to rectify it.
Nope. If the seller lied, that's one thing. If the seller honestly
didn't know, that's another. And if nobody in their right mind would
object to the teeny, tiny, little problem that you or I saw, or if we're
one of six subject-matter-experts in the world and no one but us could
know about this problem, then that is hardly the seller's fault, and no,
they should NOT have to refund.
Wrong. The buyer has a right to rely on a statement of fact, whether made
honestly but in error, or dishonestly.
I've two lenses that were described by the two different sellers as
having 'minor cleaning marks' on one of the elements. One looked like
someone had taken a screwdriver to it. The other had these itty-bitty
swirl marks that I had to use a loupe and a flashlight to even see.
Which seller lied to me? Which was dishonest? Which owes me a refund?
Which should be in jail? Their standards for 'minor cleaning marks'
might have been different than mine. Under your approach, if YOU don't
find the marks acceptable, the SELLER is 'FALSELY SELLING'.
Stick to speaking for yourself. Don't invent things I didn't say.
They both said it was a lens to fit a Canon FL mount. They were.
They both said it was in operating condition. They were.
They both said it took good photographs when they used them. I have no
idea if that's true or not.
They both said they had 'minor cleaning marks' on one of the elements.
Now, who lied? Who misrepresented their lens to me? Whom should I
demand a refund from?
I'm sure you understand your farm auctions. You got burned on Ebay
because you don't understand Ebay auctions, or, indeed, the law of
the
land.
May I say that in my opinion, you have no idea what you're talking
about.
Your opinion on this subject carries little weight.
An auction is an auction. Sellers cannot lie about the condition of
what they are selling. That is a crime, and it is called 'fraud'.
Condition is subjective. I say it looks pretty nice for it's age. You
say it is all dinged up and unacceptable. Do we disagree? Yep. Did I
lie? Maybe. Depends on a whole lotta conditions.
You are very confused. An incorrect statement of fact lands the seller in
trouble. A disputable opinion is another issue.
Has no one ever heard of Caveat Emptor before? It is not a license for
sellers to lie. It means buyers have to do their homework, asking
questions, making judgements, choosing wisely - and sometimes, there is
disappointment.
Your point?
Buyers have the right not to be lied to. That does not mean they have
the right not to be disappointed. You and several others here seem to
equate 'being disappointed' with 'being intentionally misled'. The
fomer is tough teat for you. The second is a crime.
You're inventing again.
Wiggers, you need to bone up on the law, and you need to refrain from
putting words into other people's mouths. You're clearly still very
unhappy about your experiences, and this is clouding your judgement.
Coming back to your statement that not all country boys are dumb, I can
only say: Case not proven.
John
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 14/06/2005
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.3/15 - Release Date: 14/06/2005
