Suing for loss of bargain?

Invalidation

forgotmyname wrote: »

But ebay is not a proper auction. Otherwise they would have to offer more protection.

Contracts dont have to depend on an Auction, a contract can (and is) a simple agreement between 2 or more participants where there is offer and acceptance.
All that is necessary for most contracts to be legally valid are the following two elements:

• all parties are in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other)
• something of value has been exchanged, such as cash, services or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) for something else of value.

To be honest Ebay offers little more protection than that which is available via Civil law. In fact they tried ducking out of a lot of their responsibility when they shifted their UK base, but forgot they needed to keep a UK office open.
They offer what they do as it makes people feel more secure, but in reality they are a multi million pound company and they simply dont care about their users and in some cases treat them like dirt, closing their accounts for little reason, Just try sorting out a problem via their online help, it takes you round and round in circles, same as their other company Paypal.
I use them because it suits me and I fully understand my rights when using them and Paypal, but I dont take any rubbish from them, having issued legal proceedings against them several times, once for THEIR breach of contract. I havent lost yet.

System

Just a thought. Under normal online selling the point that the contract is agreed tends to be a grey area, hence companies stating that the contract isn't agreed until the purchase is dispatched/received by the buyer and being accepted as a legal variation to the normal rules.

Including a similar condition within the ebay listing would have the same effect?

bris

Ebay is a proper aucion and auction rules do apply, why do you think DSR does not apply to auction sales on ebay.
The contract is formed on the drop of the hammer, in Ebays case the time runs out. Both parties are now contracted to conclude the deal, one breaks the contract the other can sue to have it concluded.

In the op's case, loss of bargain, would be a case against the seller, the breach of contract makes it possible and this is one of the reasons loss of bargain exists.
The OP would have to find a like for like item and buy it, if it was £100 and the auction price was £50 the OP's loss is £50 and this is what they sue for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_of_damages_under_English_law

RFW

bris wrote: »

Ebay is a proper aucion and auction rules do apply, why do you think DSR does not apply to auction sales on ebay.

I think there's a bit of a myth being held as to rules surrounding online and offline auction sales. In simple terms there are more rights to buyers in online auctions than most auctions where the general public can view the items before hand, these are generally not 'consumer' sales and the onus is on the buyer to have satisfied themselves to the quality, etc of the goods before they buy.
Also distance selling regulations for Ebay auctions may not be legally enforceable but largely speaking Ebay enforce them anyway if pushed by the buyer.

I still think this is a silly argument, any seller with a spark of common sense would be able to avoid a court case from a buyer for 'loss of bargain'.

I've been an auctioneer for 20+ years and sold some incredible bargains, unsurprisingly the ones who buy them are invariably the ones that get hooked on auctions and end up as very good customers, so I've never seen the point of listing/lotting something and then changing your mind because the price was too low.

Legal_Academic

In your experience, what's the best way to do that?

RFW wrote: »

I still think this is a silly argument, any seller with a spark of common sense would be able to avoid a court case from a buyer for 'loss of bargain'.

RFW

Legal_Academic wrote: »

In your experience, what's the best way to do that?

I don't have experience of it and nor am I ever going to, but with a little imagination I'm sure someone of your intellect could come up with a few excuses that were impossible for a court to prove one way or another as to why the seller was no longer able to supply an item.

Legal_Academic

RFW wrote: »

I'm sure someone of your intellect could come up with a few excuses that were impossible for a court to prove one way or another as to why the seller was no longer able to supply an item.

Thanks for the compliment. I ask because it’s less obvious to me how to back out without liability. Obviously you can’t just change your mind after the electronic hammer falls, since that would be a breach of contract, even if you’re a private seller.

If you say you carelessly damaged or lost the item, the element of blame would not allow you to claim frustration of the contract and escape liability for loss of bargain if the market rate is far higher than the winning bid.

Crucially if the goods are generic (i.e. not unique) then you could not plead frustration as a defence at all – you’d have to go out and buy a replacement.

The Sales of Goods Act says that risk in the item runs with whoever owns it at the time, and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regs confirm that the risk is the seller’s until delivery if he is in business and the buyer is a consumer.

These issues seem to rule out many sellers who want to back out of an eBay sale.

I can see that if the item is a rare antique that got destroyed by a bolt of lightning or a terrorist attack, the contract would be legitimately frustrated, but most of the other arguments I’m seeing may well hit problems if litigated.

RHemmings

Invalidation wrote: »

Sorry, 'Legal Precedents' arent set in any Small claims County Court, or for anything else in a County Court actually.. Bone up on your law a little eh ?

Where did I saw that legal precedents were set in a small claims court or a county court? Bone up on your reading comprehension a little eh?

The situation concerning precedents is described here: http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Judicial-precedent.php

RHemmings

Legal_Academic wrote: »

One such claim is listed at the top of this page

http://e-sue.co.uk/recent_work.htm

Yes, that's a very interesting case. Being a county court, it doesn't create a binding precedent. But it's still very useful to see how the judge ruled in that case.

RFW

Legal_Academic wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment. I ask because it’s less obvious to me how to back out without liability. Obviously you can’t just change your mind after the electronic hammer falls, since that would be a breach of contract, even if you’re a private seller.

If you say you carelessly damaged or lost the item, the element of blame would not allow you to claim frustration of the contract and escape liability for loss of bargain if the market rate is far higher than the winning bid.

Crucially if the goods are generic (i.e. not unique) then you could not plead frustration as a defence at all – you’d have to go out and buy a replacement.

The Sales of Goods Act says that risk in the item runs with whoever owns it at the time, and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regs confirm that the risk is the seller’s until delivery if he is in business and the buyer is a consumer.

These issues seem to rule out many sellers who want to back out of an eBay sale.

I can see that if the item is a rare antique that got destroyed by a bolt of lightning or a terrorist attack, the contract would be legitimately frustrated, but most of the other arguments I’m seeing may well hit problems if litigated.

Yes indeed it would depend on the item, but in most cases there is no way of proving what happened to a particular item and pursuing a claim for "loss of a bargain" is largely a stupid idea.

There is also the "I made a mistake" option where the seller says that they obviously had meant £1000 and not £10.00. It is also the case that not everyone forced to sell items will have funds to pay a 'loss of bargain' claim should it be awarded against them.

Just because there is one case quoted where a claimant won is no evidence that it is a good course of action and I'd be surprised if you could find many more cases. The 'loss' would have to be a relatively high one to be worth going to court and they very rarely happen that way.