From: Humbug on
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:26:35 +0000, Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:04:08 -0000, "Niel J Humphreys"
><admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Quite, the OPs greed is not helping this be bought to a conclusion. No doubt
>>he will blame the seller for this instead of accepting that human beings
>>make mistakes from time to time and conceding that he can't freeload on this
>>one.
>>
>>From what I can see the seller held their hands up pretty early on and
>>admitted their mistake but the OP decided to be arsey about it. This put the
>>seller on the defensive as it was probably evident that the OP was being a
>>unreasomable person.
>
>I'm not sure you can really describe the buyer as "unreasonable". The
>seller offered goods at a certain price. That price was low but not
>sufficiently so as to indicate the seller had made a clear mistake.
>
>The buyer made an offer at that price and the seller accepted that
>offer. That the acceptance was an automatic response is immaterial as
>it was set up by the seller.
>
>A contract now exists between the seller and buyer to provide the
>goods to the buyer at the price agreed. If the seller refuses to
>honour the contract the buyer could purchase the same items elsewhere
>and recover the difference between his purchase price of the
>replacements and his original offer from the seller.
>
>If you are the seller in that position it isn't a terribly strong
>bargaining position. You either honour the contract and learn a
>lesson for later or you ask _very nicely_ if the buyer would do you a
>great favour and please help you out. If the seller chooses not to,
>you take the loss.
>
>There really are no other sensible choices.

How easy is it to sue an eBay seller for loss of bargain?

--
Humbug
From: MC on
Humbug wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:26:35 +0000, Peter Parry <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:04:08 -0000, "Niel J Humphreys"
> ><admin(a)sznzozwdzoznzczozmzpzuztzezrzs.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Quite, the OPs greed is not helping this be bought to a
> > > conclusion. No doubt he will blame the seller for this instead of
> > > accepting that human beings make mistakes from time to time and
> > > conceding that he can't freeload on this one.
> > >
> > > From what I can see the seller held their hands up pretty early
> > > on and admitted their mistake but the OP decided to be arsey
> > > about it. This put the seller on the defensive as it was probably
> > > evident that the OP was being a unreasomable person.
> >
> > I'm not sure you can really describe the buyer as "unreasonable".
> > The seller offered goods at a certain price. That price was low
> > but not sufficiently so as to indicate the seller had made a clear
> > mistake.
> >
> > The buyer made an offer at that price and the seller accepted that
> > offer. That the acceptance was an automatic response is immaterial
> > as it was set up by the seller.
> >
> > A contract now exists between the seller and buyer to provide the
> > goods to the buyer at the price agreed. If the seller refuses to
> > honour the contract the buyer could purchase the same items
> > elsewhere and recover the difference between his purchase price of
> > the replacements and his original offer from the seller.
> >
> > If you are the seller in that position it isn't a terribly strong
> > bargaining position. You either honour the contract and learn a
> > lesson for later or you ask _very nicely_ if the buyer would do you
> > a great favour and please help you out. If the seller chooses not
> > to, you take the loss.
> >
> > There really are no other sensible choices.
>
>

No different, I suppose, as long as the Ebay seller is a registered
trader. The laws of the land would be the same as any retailer selling
at distance. You really should be asking "How easy is it to sue any
retailer for loss of bargain?"

MC
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Usenet Nutter"
<spammetodeath(a)lololololololololololololol.uk> saying something like:

>> Indeed. They won't honour the sale because they will go at a loss.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds a lot like spackie talking, dosn't it?!

I wondered that a week ago.
Spackie couldn't keep away if he tried - just another nym.
From: petrolcan on
In article <ET_Pm.9477$Ym4.3572(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, "Toxic
Waste" says...
>
> "petrolcan" <petrolcanSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.257a84021acaca55989ac2(a)text.news.virginmedia.com...
> > In article <6xYPm.9425$Ym4.41(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, "Toxic Waste"
>
> <big snip>
>
> > I suggest that you go back and read the entire thread. It wasn't about
> > bidding.
>
> I really can't be arsed...

That figures.
From: Fran on

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message
news:eg11h5lljitarbqqkm10pq8relfv0gf6o3(a)4ax.com...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Usenet Nutter"
> <spammetodeath(a)lololololololololololololol.uk> saying something like:
>
>>> Indeed. They won't honour the sale because they will go at a loss.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Sounds a lot like spackie talking, dosn't it?!
>
> I wondered that a week ago.
> Spackie couldn't keep away if he tried - just another nym.

There's a certain irony concerning the IDs of those who seem to be taking a
pretty similar position to the one I suspect he'd have taken.