What I was selling no longer available- buyer still wants it...

MyUserNamesTaken

Murtle wrote:

I don't believe they are as has been displayed many many times on these forums where shops have just refunded the money back to MSE users.

Everyone thought the same, but it isn't to be....

Read my reply to Soolin. Also, most of the time, online retailers only place a hold on the money, rather than actually taking it (when paying by card). If this is the case, the money hasn't been taken. As stated previously, remember Kodak? Another one - Tesco.com fiasco over an X Files boxset they'd mispriced. They had to supply the goods to those whose cards had actually been debited (me, for one). I also got a Kodak camera. Normally, online retailers will fall back on their terms and conditions, which cover these sort of things. The OP doesn't have any terms and conditions, therefore the contract is straightforward. The buyer offers to buy the product and used the buy it now feature. The seller then accepts her offer. Buyer sends payment, which the seller has accepted. Now the seller must fulfill the contract. The buyer can easily sue the seller for a degree of specific performance.

MyUserNamesTaken

culpepper wrote:

Seems simple enough to me. Refund everyone the money they have paid you with an apology and leave it at that.Honestly if someone were to sue ,what would be the grounds? You have refunded the money, they are not out of pocket and can buy the goods elsewhere. All this talk of suing is what makes people wary of ebaying.

The buyer does not have to accept the refund. Ground for suing? Breaking a legally binding contract to provide goods at an agreed price, having taken the money. It isn't simply a case of giving back the money if the buyer wants to take it further.

devild_2

Morally you should fulfill the order, the buyer bought it in good faith, if you don't make a profit then that's too bad.

mike230652

My UserNamesTaken is right.

I spoke to a solicitor friend who specialises in contract law ( only because we were at the same party last night....! )

His views are that:
1 - Has the seller got specific T&C's in their advert which would protect them from this specific situation i.e. an unexpected price increase from his supplier and did he make this information available to any prospective purchasers.
If not, it appears to be a straightforward sale and purchase.

2 - More importantly...did the person offering the goods for sale leave the money in a holding account once the goods were purchased ( his belief is that Paypal could be construed as such an account).
If the OP has left it in Paypal he may have a reason for refund since he has not strictly used the funds but held them until the sale is completed.

If, however, the BUYER can prove that any part of the monies they sent HAVE been transferred to a secondary account i.e. Building Society, bank account, business account etc. then his belief is that the SELLER has accepted the transaction and would be liable to complete at the price that the SELLER accepted ( by virtue of the fact the BUYER has moved the money from any holding account). Any unexpected increase from the OP's contractor ( i.e. the people who supply him ) is not part of any contract between the SELLER and BUYER.

Don't flame if I got some of the phraseology wrong.....!! My friend is only giving his ( unpaid...lol ) opinion.

The crux of it is if the seller moved the money from Paypal to any other bank etc..........my friend's feeling is he's in the mire.


His opinion......would be the best thing the OP can do is refund the money pronto, keep his head down and fingers crossed and hope none of the buyers decide to follow through.


Mike

soolin

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Read my reply to Soolin. Also, most of the time, online retailers only place a hold on the money, rather than actually taking it (when paying by card). If this is the case, the money hasn't been taken. As stated previously, remember Kodak? Another one - Tesco.com fiasco over an X Files boxset they'd mispriced. They had to supply the goods to those whose cards had actually been debited (me, for one). I also got a Kodak camera. Normally, online retailers will fall back on their terms and conditions, which cover these sort of things. The OP doesn't have any terms and conditions, therefore the contract is straight forward. The buyer offers to buy the product and used the buy it now feature. The seller then accepts her offer. Buyer sends payment, which the seller has accepted. Now the seller must fulfil the contract. The buyer can easily sue the seller for a degree of specific performance.

Still not what happens in reality. The £5 TV and DVD fiasco that affected 2 major retailers is a good example. Money was taken and in some cases kept for almost two weeks. They did not just hold credit card payments, they actually physically took payment from a bank acocunt when paying by debit card, I know as I was one of those who paid by debit card.

The buyer can sue for this if they wish, but I can't see them getting very far.

Soo

MyUserNamesTaken

mike230652 wrote:

My UserNamesTaken is right.

I spoke to a solicitor friend who specialises in contract law ( only because we were at the same party last night....! )

His views are that:
1 - Has the seller got specific T&C's in their advert which would protect them from this specific situation i.e. an unexpected price increase from his supplier and did he make this information available to any prospective purchasers.
If not, it appears to be a straightforward sale and purchase.

2 - More importantly...did the person offering the goods for sale leave the money in a holding account once the goods were purchased ( his belief is that Paypal could be construed as such an account).
If the OP has left it in Paypal he may have a reason for refund since he has not strictly used the funds but held them until the sale is completed.

If, however, the BUYER can prove that any part of the monies they sent HAVE been transferred to a secondary account i.e. Building Society, bank account, business account etc. then his belief is that the SELLER has accepted the transaction and would be liable to complete at the price that the SELLER accepted ( by virtue of the fact the BUYER has moved the money from any holding account). Any unexpected increase from the OP's contractor ( i.e. the people who supply him ) is not part of any contract between the SELLER and BUYER.

Don't flame if I got some of the phraseology wrong.....!! My friend is only giving his ( unpaid...lol ) opinion.

The crux of it is if the seller moved the money from Paypal to any other bank etc..........my friend's feeling is he's in the mire.


His opinion......would be the best thing the OP can do is refund the money pronto, keep his head down and fingers crossed and hope none of the buyers decide to follow through.


Mike

I would probably argue that paypal isn't a holding account. The buyer has no access to the funds once they've been paid to the seller's paypal account. The buyer has to go to a lot of trouble to get the money back from there if things go wrong. The seller, on the other hand, has full access to the funds and can use them without any hassle.

MyUserNamesTaken

soolin wrote:

Still not what happens in reality. The £5 TV and DVD fiasco that affected 2 major retailers is a good example. Money was taken and in some cases kept for almost two weeks. They did not just hold credit card payments, they actually physically took payment from a bank acocunt when paying by debit card, I know as I was one of those who paid by debit card.

The buyer can sue for this if they wish, but I can't see them getting very far.

Soo

Soo, I've already explained the difference. It does happen in reality, too. Not so often nowadays, as online retailers have wised up to it and added terms to cover such eventualities. I got a Kodak camera when Kodak mispriced it. Why? Kodak sent out an email stating that a contract now existed, etc, etc. Kodak knew they'd cocked up and they didn't have terms to cover it. They were advised by their legal department that they didn't have a chance of getting out of it due to taking the money and the wording of that email. Same with Tesco.com at the time of the X Files box set fiasco. They had no terms to cover it. Now, however, they do.

Like I said earlier, it comes down to the terms and conditions. The two retailers had terms and conditions to cover them in the event of a misprice. Whenever anyone wants to buy something from them, they have to tick the box agreeing to the terms and conditions. The two retailers then used these Ts&Cs to get out of the contract. However, seeing as no-one has ever tried to take a retailer to court over such a fiasco, it is a very grey area legally. It could be argued that such terms and conditions are unfair under The Unfair Contract Terms Act.

In this case, the seller does not have a leg to stand on, as he has no such terms and conditions.

shelly

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Hmm...legally, she can take you to court, as she has paid for the items and you have accepted the payment. You've had offer and acceptance and consideration in the form of payment. If she really wants to, she could drag you to the SCC to get you to fulfill the terms of the contract.

funnymoney wrote:

I have tried explaining this to one of the buyers who has spent over £1000 in one order, but she has refused to mutually agree to cancel the transaction via the unpaid item method (she hasn't paid)

As the OP said, the buyer never paid anyway so I can't see what all the fuss was about.

funnymoney, glad your buyer saw sense and cancelled the transaction.

MyUserNamesTaken

If she hasn't paid, then he's got nothing to worry about. He can back out, as no consideration has been given by either side. Where the other buyers are concerned (the ones who have paid), the OP just has to hope that they are reasonable and take the refund.

nutmegman

FUNNYMONEY - here is my advice on the legal point.

(note - I deal in contract law as my job, please PM me if you need further advice)

Contract law does apply, however, remember this is based on case law and to date case law has not been tested with these type of transactions.

If you were taken to the small claims court you would win hands down as you contract with the seller is whats called a voidable contract. It is a voidable contract because you are in breach of the sale of goodas act 1979 under the Nemo Dat rule. This breach means the contract is not enforable in law, you will however have to bring the parties to the contract back to thier position before the contract was entered. This means paying thier actual loss, and in this case it wouldnt be much.

As for the Nemo Dat rule, this is very important indeed for people whom drop ship. This rule means you cannot tranfer better title than you already have. As you are dropshipping you do not legally own the goods you sell, therefore, when you sell the goods the title can only pass to the buyer when the goods are delivered and not when the paid for as defined in the sale of goods act.

I hope this helps and i can offer further advice if required.....