Wiggers,
I do agree that when it comes to matters of opinion, the situation is far
less clear-cut. If a case like this went to court, the test would be what
a "reasonable man" would think.
On Ebay you do have to accept that opinions differ, but people still
shouldn't expect to get away with ridiculous opinions.
If blackmailed by a buyer threatening an unreasonable neg, I would accept
the neg, and make my case in the comment. Then neg him back. You can
learn a lot from reading the neg comments and responses.
Anyway, I'm awa to me bed. Good night.
John
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:08:17 +0100, Wigwam Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
John Forbes wrote:
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.
I think our disagreement is in what a 'misrepresentation' is. I agree
that some statements are absolute, not really subject to
interpretation. If I say something is 'new' then that's what it must
be. If I say it is 'used' that does not infer any statement other than
'not new'. How used? Used like junk, or used like just out of the
box? The problem I am seeing is that some in this thread are stating
that they, as buyers, get to decide what 'used' and words like that mean
- that all descriptors can be parsed to a true or false condition.
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.
Mea culpa.
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.
Actually, no, they haven't been talking about definite statements
entirely. And to use your example, I could, as a seller, describe a
camera as 'fully working' if in my understanding as to what that means -
ie, it takes pictures, they come out when I drop off the film, and so
on. A buyer reads 'fully working' as meaning within factory specs.
Does the seller owe the buyer a refund? Some here have said there is
the gray area is small - not common. I defend and say it is the most
common condition. Outright deception is what it is - a crime.
Wrong. The buyer has a right to rely on a statement of fact, whether
made honestly but in error, or dishonestly.
I agree. Not every descriptor is a 'statement of fact'. I see ads on
TV all the time - one brand is tastier than another. Is that a
statement of fact, or permissable puffery?
Stick to speaking for yourself. Don't invent things I didn't say.
Fair enough; my apologies.
Your opinion on this subject carries little weight.
OK.
You are very confused. An incorrect statement of fact lands the seller
in trouble. A disputable opinion is another issue.
I agree with the second part of your statement. The argument I have
been attempting to make is that many here are confusing an opinion with
a statement of fact. If I say it is 'blue' then it better be blue. If
I say it 'looks great' then how does one dispute that as a 'false
description'?
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.
I'll refrain from putting words in your mouth, my bad. As to my
knowledge of the law, your opinion of what I need is noted.
Coming back to your statement that not all country boys are dumb, I
can only say: Case not proven.
What would it take, besides agreeing with you?
--
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
