From: Ian Cox on
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:13:02 -0000, Marcus Redd wrote:

>>> ROFL!!!!!!!! "BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 (tested by Mensa)" eh? Wow...
>>> that
>>> must mean that he was mug enough to take the Mensa test, the results of
>>> which are most likely "Oooh, you're really bright, you MUST join our
>>> organisation and pay us a regular membership fee..." Fleeced, Neil,
>>> fleeced.
>>
>> He didn't say he'd joined, did he?
>
> You're right, of course. I'm an idiot. Shoot me.

KABOOOOOOOOM!

--
Ian Cox
Sutton-in-Ashfield
ICQ 116510696
Remove my hat to email me.
From: Alison Hopkins on

"Ian Cox" <ian-coxtit(a)ferntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:11qnxt7h7lgs9$.17tsd7ms0gcyk$.dlg(a)40tude.net...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:13:02 -0000, Marcus Redd wrote:
>
>>>> ROFL!!!!!!!! "BA(Hons) and an IQ of 155 (tested by Mensa)" eh? Wow...
>>>> that
>>>> must mean that he was mug enough to take the Mensa test, the results of
>>>> which are most likely "Oooh, you're really bright, you MUST join our
>>>> organisation and pay us a regular membership fee..." Fleeced, Neil,
>>>> fleeced.
>>>
>>> He didn't say he'd joined, did he?
>>
>> You're right, of course. I'm an idiot. Shoot me.
>
> KABOOOOOOOOM!
>

Oh, nice shot sir.

Ali


From: Ian Cox on
On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 22:52:19 -0000, Alison Hopkins wrote:

>>>> He didn't say he'd joined, did he?
>>>
>>> You're right, of course. I'm an idiot. Shoot me.
>>
>> KABOOOOOOOOM!
>>
>
> Oh, nice shot sir.

<jng>

--
Ian Cox
Sutton-in-Ashfield
ICQ 116510696
Remove my hat to email me.
From: Peter Parry on
On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:01:33 GMT, "Sid" <nospam(a)nospam.co.nospam>
wrote:

>"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote

>> Nothing, so long as they have an obligation to pay. However, once
>> the contract is cancelled using the DSR's they no longer have any
>> contract or obligation to pay so there is no unpaid item and they
>> cannot be non payers by eBays rules - simple.
>
>but aren't you just using semantics to fit your position?

The law is all about semantics, lawyers make a living for their
families out of them.

>is there anything specific in the DSR that could nulify an ebay strike in a
>legal sense?

Yes, the eBay strike is a consequence of having failed to fulfil a
contract. If the contract is cancelled you cannot have failed to
fulfil it. The DSR's cancel the contract, in the exact words of the
SI "the effect of a notice of cancellation is that the contract shall
be treated as if it had not been made". If the contract has not been
made neither eBay nor anyone else can exact retribution for not
fulfilling it. To do so would be as illogical as penalising everyone
whose bid did not win.

>you've mentioned the buyer should not be penalised and there
>shall be no get out clause, but surely the spirit of that is the buyer shall
>not be at a financially loss.

No, quite the reverse. The spirit is that the supplier should carry
nearly all the risk in a transaction. One purpose of the DSR's is to
ensure that for distance sales the suppliers make their descriptions
accurate and comprehensive. One way of doing this would be to try to
prescribe what words could be used but the practical problems of
doing this are enormous. Another is to simply give the buyer the
right to sling the goods back at the seller without having to argue
about the detail. That is the approach which was chosen.

The rationale is that a good seller who accurately describes their
produce will have few problems, the poor seller who tries to hide
junk under dubious (but not actually unlawful) descriptions will have
to deal with a lot of returns and will mend their ways.

Let's say I had a laptop for sale. If I described it as :-

"Compaq Evo N160 933Mhz Laptop. Spares/Repair

Compaq Evo N160 in superb cosmetic condition, looks almost new.
I don't know if it works as it has no power supply and therefore I
have not tested it. It has not been opened. Because I can't test it
the unit is sold for spares and repair only.

* Intel Celeron 933Mhz
* 13.3" Screen clean and unmarked
* No Battery
* No Power supply
* Compete UK Keyboard"

For the item I'm thinking of that description is probably just about
legal but it doesn't describe it completely or accurately. To see
how it has (and should) be described have a look at the sale I
modified that description from at :-

<http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/FAULTY-Compaq-Evo-N160-933Mhz-Laptop-Spares-Repair_W0QQitemZ330055905616QQihZ014QQcategoryZ177QQcmdZViewItem>

Someone buying from either description would probably (it's too late
at night to think of the finer nuances :-) ) have no comeback under
the SOGA.

However I think most people would agree that my description, whilst
accurate, is misleading. Niels description is accurate and
comprehensive and would mislead no one. The DSR's would allow
someone who bought from me to simply return the goods for a refund.

They could of course do the same with Niel, but as his description is
accurate the chances of that happening are very much lower. The
DSR's allow someone who bought on incomplete but not actually
dishonest descriptions to have simple redress against the seller.

>it would be very easy for ebay to use different wording in the unpaid item
>process to break your logic.

It would be impossible as the DSR's eliminate any contract of sale.
Once that is gone eBay can do nothing (nor would they try - the risk
would be far to great).

>we all know what the spirit of the unpaid item process is - if the buyer
>backs out of the transaction they get a strike and if they do it too often
>their ebay account gets shut down to protect sellers and ebay from
>frivoulous bidders, particularly problematic with auction style listings.

That's as maybe, the DSR's give buyers an absolute right to back out
for no reason as many times as they wish and there is nothing eBay or
anyone else can do about it.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/
From: Sid on

"bcc97" <bcc98(a)stork.plus.com> wrote in message
news:1165355539.959391.185260(a)80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sid wrote:
>> we all know what the spirit of the unpaid item process is - if the buyer
>> backs out of the transaction they get a strike and if they do it too
>> often
>> their ebay account gets shut down to protect sellers and ebay from
>> frivoulous bidders, particularly problematic with auction style listings.
>> Sid
>
> Exactly. The spirit (and letter) of the process is to penalise the
> buyer unlawfully for exercising their legal rights under the DSR.

i can't find a reference in the DSR which backs up what your saying.
the only reference that I can find that seems pertinent is DSR 25 (2) (if
there is another please point it out).
which states:

"(2) Where a provision of these Regulations specifies a duty or liability of
the consumer in certain circumstances, a term contained in a contract to
which these Regulations apply, other than a term to which paragraph (3)
applies, is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose,
directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those
circumstances."

I don't see the connection between an ebay strike and 'duty or liability',
liability would be financial, well as long as he doesn't pay or gets a full
refund there is no liability imposed on the buyer. would an ebay strike be
defined as a liability?
as for duty, that would be something the buyer is required to do in order to
get the refund. if he walks away after being reimbursed, or after stating he
has cancelled and will not pay, he has no duty to perform.

> In relation to auction-style, it is by no means certain that DSR apply,
> and it would certainly be open to the seller to argue this. There is
> no such doubt in the case of BIN.

it does state that auctions are exempt, i'm guessing htere is still debate
on whether ebay auctions fall into that category.
Sid