Bought a fake! Major dilemma!

spinning_hamster_wheel

pdel61 wrote: »

We still don't know she knew it was a fake, so everyone accusing the seller of selling fakes could be making false acusations.

Judging by the fact that she has sent me 3 seperate emails asking for the bag to be returned at once so she can relist it on eBay because she has a "waiting list" I know where my money would be

judyjetson

I'd say even the "Emmy Purse" tag is fake as well, if it scanned at £85!

patriciaellen

Well done OP - I'm with you. People selling fakes on e-bay shouldn't be getting away with it.

The Purse Forum is an excellent forum and great for naming and shaming.

If you haven't left negative feedback yet then I would hold off until all this is finally settled.

If everyone who bought a fake made as much fuss as you are making then there would be less people selling fakes.

Has she provided you with an address to return the handbag to? If so, may I suggest that you go to www.192.com and use search the electoral register to see who actually lives at that address. It's a useful way to see if your seller has provided you with a fake name or not.

Please post back to let us know how you get on.

spinning_hamster_wheel

judgejaq wrote: »

I'd say even the "Emmy Purse" tag is fake as well, if it scanned at £85!

its the emmy purse not the emmy bag. the emmy purse was in the last sale at a reduced price.

spinning_hamster_wheel

I have no objection to sites such as this; they offer a welcome forum for people to exchange practical (and free) advice in relation to problems which are not necessarily worth consulting a solicitor about (especially when fees are a minimum of £120 per hour excluding VAT, even more when any form of court action is contemplated). However, it does get to a point where some posts are wrong to the extent that others may come away with a mistaken impression. There are too many posts on here to reply to them (and pull anyone up) although I do take particular exception to one nameless individual (ie barvid) whose contribution runs as follows:

"Incidentally, the spoken/written distinction for slander/libel is also not entirely accurate - it's more of a temporary/permanent thing. Both are defamation, though." - slander is spoken and libel is written for those of us in England. Yes, it is a distinction, but an important one. Look at an extreme example to put it in perspective 'wee jimmy ned steals a car and the police nab him - he is reported to the fiscal - who not surprisingly decides this is indeed a crime - but the fiscal decides to charge him with rape - the sheriff and all other solicitors present will have a good guffaw about it' - just as they would if the incorrect disctinction re slander/libel were to be put forward in the English High Court. As to the distinction being not entirely accurate - I fancy you will find it is.

"I don't see how you could sue the seller - you'd have your money back so you would be back at square one, with no loss. That's the only thing you could sue for. You've lost nothing, provided you receive a refund, so what loss are you suing for?" This is trite contract law - the seller is purporting to have a genuine bag/camera/watch/antique bag of horse manure once owned by Leonardo da Vinci etc; ie they are putting forth a position to help realise a better sale price. Quite apart from this being a criminal offence, which it is, as the seller was quite content to let my wife buy a supposedly genuine bag, in the hope that she would not realise it was a fake, with the fallback position of an immediate refund in case it all went wrong, it is a plain and simple breach of contract. The buyer is entitled to believe without question that the seller does indeed have the particular (genuine) item. Once a sale price is agreed, the offer is accepted and you have a genuine living breathing contract. With remedies for non performance. What is the loss sued for you ask? Very simple - in this case a genuine mulberry bag, or the cost of obtaining one. Remedy in practical terms? If the seller does not send a genuine mulberry, even if it ends up costing them plenty to obtain one, in Scotland at least you have the option of raising an action for specific implement (ie the court will compel the errant seller to obtain the bag), or the buyer can purchase a mulberry at their own cost and sue for the price paid, assuming the buyer minimises their losses. Personally, I wouldnt be doing this as there is always the risk the buyer cannot be located. Personally, I would offer the seller the chance to remedy the situation before going to the police and if they will not play ball - guess who is ending up with a criminal record. At the end of the day, my wife's position is protected. Unless the law on contract was re-written in the last few minutes, I am pretty sure that is bang on the nail. or do you have an up to date law basics book which contradicts me here? Thought not.

Why pull up Barvid in particular? Well, I am of the opinion that when someone who is plainly not a solicitor starts giving more than an opinion in respect of complex legal matters, they rather open themselves to being corrected. Especially when their opinion/advice may be relied on by others.

mpython

SHW, can you tell us why the seller reported you to ebay?

Time2Go_25

I assume we now have husband of spinning_hamster_wheel now in on the act, I would suggest this thread needs to be closed as the OP has had plenty of suggestions on her original question there would have been no where near as much fuss raised about this possibly fake item if she hadn't thrown in the word "celebrity" at the start of it, we are now faced with the other half getting all legal with everyone.

If she wishes to sue, all the best, of not take the reund and bring this to a close.

asharon

spinning_hamster_wheel wrote: »

Its not the loss of money so much as the fact that she entered into a contract to supply me with a genuine Mulberry handbag. You could argue that I suffered a loss in the sense that she was to supply me with a genuine bag for £100 which she has not done. Theresore my "loss" is that of the genuine bag that I now do not have in my possession. I did not want to keep my money or have my money back, I wanted to exchange my money with the seller in return for the genuine bag.

She has no grounds for rescinding the contract on the basis that she (unknowlingly perhaps) sold me a fake. She cannot simply go "whoops! I'lll give you your money back and we're quits" the contract can only be unmade is BOTH parties agree. She has to supply the item that she offered in the contract. She is not allowed to dissolve the contract on her own terms.

Of course we now enter shaky ground on whether or not eBay constitutes a binding contract and the differences betweens Scots and English law. And I can't really be bothered to debate this on here. I suppose you can argue it constitutes a binding contract if it is in your interests for it to do so! And vice versa!

I would like my money back (hopefully!) then I will see if I'm still p**sed off enough about it to take it further.

You would have been better off just taking the refund because the dreams of suing her for the difference for the bag will go no where. The problem is that legally a bid on Ebay is not binding and should a seller try taking it to court it would be thrown out and this is just that situation in reverse.

spinning_hamster_wheel

mpython wrote: »

SHW, can you tell us why the seller reported you to ebay?

I emailed all her other buyers who bought bags from her to ask if they'd had any problems with their purchase, from what I gather she had a couple of hysterical emails from a buyer who'd bought a bag from her on the 31st, paid and not had time to receive their item yet worrying if their bag was fake. The seller has assured the other buyer that if they receive their bag and it turns out to be fake they can return it at their own cost for a full refund. So its all good. I am assuming thats what she reported me for because another buyer of hers replied to me this morning asking how to identify a fake mulberry and when I went to reply it stated that I'd been barred from doing so because I'm not involved in a transaction with the buyer. Annoying.

spinning_hamster_wheel

asharon wrote: »

You would have been better off just taking the refund because the dreams of suing her for the difference for the bag will go no where. The problem is that legally a bid on Ebay is not binding and should a seller try taking it to court it would be thrown out and this is just that situation in reverse.

Yes but she wants me to drop the paypal claim, then return her the bag, then rely on her goodwill to return my money. I don't really trust the goodwill of a seller who sells fake handbags!