From: bcc97 on
[...]
>
> Note that as far as the Distance Selling Regulations are concerned it
> is for the seller to prove they were _not_ trading, not the buyer to
> prove they were.
>

Not the case -- there is no reversal of the burden of proof for
Distance Selling Regs, so the burden of proof here lies with the buyer
It's different for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act, where the
burden of proof lies with a party who claims that the other party is
not 'dealing as a consumer' (by s.12 of the Unfair Contract Terms
Act).


> >Seems reasonable, although I daresay a "profitable hobbyist" could
> >easily hit that. OTOH, someone flogging cars would be counted as a
> >trader before they clocked up 250 sales in a year.
>
> There are very specific rules on cars, it has its own Statutory
> Instrument.  I can't remember what the limits are but they are set out
> quite simply and relate solely to the number of cars sold in a period.

There is no SI on cars (at least in relation to whether the seller is
a 'supplier' for the purposes of the Distance Selling Regulations).
Maybe you're thinking of Blakemore v Bellamy, where the defendant was
found to be a 'hobbyist'. I can't remember the exact number of cars
or the time period, but the appeal Court upheld the decision at first
instance, albeit in a rather disapproving tone.