Suing for loss of bargain?

Legal_Academic

Well nearly all civil claims into the hundreds of thousands of pounds are heard in the county court, and those cases are almost never reported. However when they are, those judgments are not ignored and neither are those in foreign countries with similar legal systems e.g. Australia. The county court considers these judgments to be persuasive, as opposed to those from the Court of Appeal and higher which are binding.

In many postings here I am still not sure what is meant by "there is no way of proving what happened to a particular item". The onus is on the seller to prove that he was not at fault, and in many cases the risk of loss or damage is entirely the seller's who must pay, whatever happened to the item.

Mistakes that are patently obvious can give rise to a defence, but in an auction scenario this cannot succeed as a defence.

RFW

Legal_Academic wrote: »

In many postings here I am still not sure what is meant by "there is no way of proving what happened to a particular item". The onus is on the seller to prove that he was not at fault, and in many cases the risk of loss or damage is entirely the seller's who must pay, whatever happened to the item.

That's taking the view that the law is inflexible. If, for a silly example, someone sells a vase for £20 that they believe to be worth not much more and the buyer knows it to be worth £20,000, the seller sends it with £50 insurance and it arrives in 1000 pieces, would a judge award damages against the seller of £19,980 for loss of bargain?

Legal_Academic

RFW wrote: »

That's taking the view that the law is inflexible. If, for a silly example, someone sells a vase for £20 that they believe to be worth not much more and the buyer knows it to be worth £20,000, the seller sends it with £50 insurance and it arrives in 1000 pieces, would a judge award damages against the seller of £19,980 for loss of bargain?

You're right of course - the law is flexible (in the right circumstances). In this particular example, remoteness of damage applies. The intervening act by a third party which the defendant did not cause and could not have reasonably foreseen will not be recoverable from the defendant. Even where the seller did break an item, damages are limited by the losses that the defendant reasonably ought to have foreseen to have flowed from the breach. Damages in these circumstances should be limited to £50.00 and could equally be claimed from the carrier.

Courts do not require eBay claims for loss of bargain to be supported by several examples of precedent. Normal contractual rules apply - goods are offered, accepted, consideration exists, legal relations are intended, and bar the seller being blind drunk, high on drugs or an infant, he will be held to the contract he entered into, even if that deal turns out to be a bad one for him.

If he hides the item or breaks it, the seller must compensate the buyer. The measure of damages is not to return the buyer to his original position (a refund and no item); the buyer is entitled to be put in the position as if the contract were performed (valuable item for very little money or its cash equivalent).

I quite understand that my view differs from most posters here who view such claims as reprehensible or silly. If I am entitled to several hundred pounds for filling out some forms because some greedy seller has breached his contract, then I'd be inclined to fill out those forms and accept what the law says is mine.

RFW

It must be nice living in your text book world.

Invalidation

Legal_Academic wrote: »

I quite understand that my view differs from most posters here who view such claims as reprehensible or silly. If I am entitled to several hundred pounds for filling out some forms because some greedy seller has breached his contract, then I'd be inclined to fill out those forms and accept what the law says is mine.

Thats why I always prefer being a LIP, I despise paying any Solicitor hundreds of pounds for doing !!!!!! all.
The one time I used a Solicitor to prepare a case 'Illegal Enactment' (it was legal Aided too) the !!!! !!!!!!ed the entire thing up.
I do it myself now and have never lost. But it takes study, the web and a good library

Invalidation

RFW wrote: »

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.

And as an innocent purchaser I would soon come up with a suitable argument that I should still be compensated for my loss.

Invalidation

RHemmings wrote: »

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

Well actually you implied it here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/50813107#Comment_50813107

I know about Judicial precedent old son. Colchester University's School of Law Courses were quite wonderfull in their time.
I was probably boning up on it before you were born.