Seller kept money. Lost £0000's. Nothing I can do?

Azari

GraceCourt wrote: »

Period.

Hard to give very much credibility to someone who is so confused she does not even appear to know what country she's in. :rotfl:

GraceCourt

Azari wrote: »

Hard to give very much credibility to someone who is so confused she does not even appear to know what country she's in.

As the geographical jurisdiction of the proceedings and of the company registration is pivotal to this whole issue, and each of my posts has been very specific about this, does anyone understand the point that the poster intended by this non sequitur?

:huh:

Millie_Millsters

GraceCourt wrote: »

As the geographical jurisdiction of the proceedings and of the company registration is pivotal to this whole issue, and each of my posts has been very specific about this, does anyone understand the point that the poster intended by this non sequitur?

:huh:

period - USA
full stop - UK

oscardog

Sad to see this thread totally gone for a burton!!

Keeping with the theme of remaining off subject, Paypal have offered to settle in full prior to the hearing. Good news - I get my money back, bad news - I don't get my day in court.

Saddest of all is that people will still insist that I would not have won despite knowing nothing!!

Point is - issue small claims proceedings, stick to your guns and the chances are they will not contest if you have anything like a case (which I did) as it is too much like hard work for them to even attend.

GraceCourt - any chance you could accept the remote possibility that you may be wrong ? I doubt it but I thought I would ask.

missile

Jimit wrote: »

..............
One thing that does deserve a little further investigation is that apparently if a bank allows a person to open an account with false information, they will be prosecuted by the law. I wonder if I could assist in pushing that action through then piggybacking a claim through the court for a similar thing - suing them for monies lost due to their negligence in not taking appropriate security ID checks on a person who then opened a bank account with them and using it to steal money.

Which law are you referring to?

You might consider employing a private investigator to track down the purchaser. Then you could pursue your claim through the courts.

peachyprice

oscardog wrote: »

Sad to see this thread totally gone for a burton!!

Keeping with the theme of remaining off subject, Paypal have offered to settle in full prior to the hearing. Good news - I get my money back, bad news - I don't get my day in court.

Saddest of all is that people will still insist that I would not have won despite knowing nothing!!

Point is - issue small claims proceedings, stick to your guns and the chances are they will not contest if you have anything like a case (which I did) as it is too much like hard work for them to even attend.

GraceCourt - any chance you could accept the remote possibility that you may be wrong ? I doubt it but I thought I would ask.

Thanks for the update Oscar.

Glad you got your money back. If there was no way you could have brought a case before them (as suggested by GraceCourt) they wouldn't have settled out of court, would they? They'd have just got their lawyers to write a belittling letter to you telling you there was no case.

pendulum

peachyprice wrote: »

If there was no way you could have brought a case before them (as suggested by GraceCourt) they wouldn't have settled out of court, would they?

Are you suggesting large companies do not settle out of court to avoid bad publicity or irrecoverable costs associated with defending themselves, even if they know there's a good chance they could actually win the case?

Azari

pendulum wrote: »

Are you suggesting large companies do not settle out of court to avoid bad publicity or irrecoverable costs associated with defending themselves, even if they know there's a good chance they could actually win the case?

LOL. These people certainly don't care about bad publicity - they are known for shirking their responsibilities and attempting to hide behind legal technicalities.

And whilst a company may well decide not to fight a case they merely have 'a good chance' of winning, they are pretty much certain to go through the process if a case cannot actually be brought, as GC maintained.

peachyprice

pendulum wrote: »

Are you suggesting large companies do not settle out of court to avoid bad publicity or irrecoverable costs associated with defending themselves, even if they know there's a good chance they could actually win the case?

This is Paypal we're talking about, they don't give a hoot about bad publicity as they have the market pretty much cornered.

If it were not possible to bring a case against Paypal do you not think they would have let it go to court to set a legal precedent and prevent anyone else trying in the future?

pendulum

peachyprice wrote: »

If it were not possible to bring a case against Paypal do you not think they would have let it go to court to set a legal precedent and prevent anyone else trying in the future?

You realise legal precedents are not set in Small Claims Court don't you?

I've already given reasons why they may not have bothered to defend this, if it were a small sum involved, regardless of whether they could get it thrown out or not. The main reason being it could cost more in legal fees to get it thrown out or defend it than it would to just pay up.