taken to court over ebay purchase

unholyangel

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The complainant against me, yes, the chap that brought these proceedings did not defend.

I don't see how I can maker it any clearer

I think you mean the complainant did not turn up/appear/present/whatever. They're not defending, you are. Hence defendant and complainant.

What about the other question? About the payment from your insurers? Was it made to you or to the complainant?

gik

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

The complainant against me, yes, the chap that brought these proceedings did not defend.

I don't see how I can maker it any clearer

It's as clear as mud to be honest. Reading your sig. perhaps explains why.

Takeaway_Addict

gik wrote: »

It's as clear as mud to be honest. Reading your sig. perhaps explains why.

I agree, basically from what I can understand is the op got their insurance to got the cost of defending the case and the person that took the case to court didn't defend so the op won and the insurance still lost money

Bantex_2

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

I agree, basically from what I can understand is the op got their insurance to got the cost of defending the case and the person that took the case to court didn't defend so the op won and the insurance still lost money

Lost me again, how can the person who took the case to court defend? The only person they could defend against is themself.

Herbalus

Bantex wrote: »

Lost me again, how can the person who took the case to court defend? The only person they could defend against is themself.

I think they're saying the OP got the insurance money for the case (to pay the claim, not to defend, according to the OP's posts), but the OP still issued a defence/counterclaim, which went uncontested by the original 'fraudster', who didn't show up and "defend" the counterclaim.

So the OP won in court, because of a no-show by the original claimant/'fraudster' person, yet still has the money from the insurance which was paid to settle the case??

gik

Herbalus wrote: »

I think they're saying the OP got the insurance money for the case (to pay the claim, not to defend, according to the OP's posts), but the OP still issued a defence/counterclaim, which went uncontested by the original 'fraudster', who didn't show up and "defend" the counterclaim.

So the OP won in court, because of a no-show by the original claimant/'fraudster' person, yet still has the money from the insurance which was paid to settle the case??

I read it that the insurance co. wouldn't take it on as they thought they couldn't win the case? Confusion.

wealdroam

gik wrote: »

I read it that the insurance co. wouldn't take it on as they thought they couldn't win the case? Confusion.

I read it that the insurance company wouldn't take on the case because it wasn't economical to do so.
In other words, the case was winnable, but would cost more to win than just paying up and effectively 'losing'.

So the ebay seller won... the insurance company paid him.
Did a court hearing even take place?

ivavoucher

my head hurts :eek:

"The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!"

stevemLS

I can't follow what has gone on either.

There is, however, good reason for the very old maxim "A lawyer who acts for himself has a fool for a client".

ritesh

After reading the thread, I get it and applaud you Cyclonebri1.