In Australia, An Ebay Sale is a Sale 267
syousef writes "An eBay sale is a sale says an Australian New South Wales State Judge in a case where a man tried to reneg on the Ebay sale of a 1946 World War II Wirraway aircraft. The seller tried to weasel out of the deal because he'd received a separate offer $100,000 greater than the Ebay sale price. The buyer who had bid the reserve price of $150,000 at the last minute took him to court. 'It follows that, in my view, a binding contract was formed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that it should be specifically enforced,' Justice Rein said in his decision." I haven't found anything like this in previous discussions; have there been similar decisions like this handed down in the US, Canada, or Europe?
Auction vs Sale (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand - whenever there is a super low bid (lets say sum equal to a few dollars) because somebody forgets to set a minimum price, the court usually decides that the auction is a salesman's mistake and voids it.
In Germany it was the other way around (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sale.. (Score:5, Informative)
An auction is a *type* of sale. The auction itself is merely a method of attaining a price. The contract of sale is created on the falling of the auctioneer's hammer, or similar event. If a reserve price is not reached, the goods may be sold to the highest bidder, or withdrawn. Whether or not an online 'auction' falls under the common law definition of an auction is highly dependent upon each country's law...and in this case, I believe the judge says that it does, which might be a departure from existing Australian Common Law.
The interesting thing about this case is that the Judge gave the winner the airplane. Usually, if you win a court case like this, you only get money damages unless the goods are unique or very rare. A World War II Wirraway plane, 1 of 5 left in the world, certainly qualifies for the legal remedy of "specific performance".
Auto sales too? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You're missing the point (Score:4, Informative)
Is the sale binding? (Score:2, Informative)
At least, that's the opinion of US and UK law.
Re:Sale.. (Score:3, Informative)
There's five things that make a contract:
Whether this occurs at an online auction, a B&M auction, or at a department store doesn't really matter. What matters is those five points.
At a B&M sales, judges have decided that the offer is when the consumer takes the merchandise to the counter, and the acceptance is when the cashier rings it in. The consideration is the goods that you brought, and your intention to contract is clear when you bring that merchandise. As long as your not an invalid capacity is there.
In an auction is clearly obvious. You offer $100,000 for a plane. The auctioneer stated that the highest winning bid will be accepted. They do this at the time they set up the auction (they COULD have set a reserve - a reserve would state that they will consider lower prices but are not bound contractually). I agree with the judge in this case - tough shit for the guy trying to weasel out of his contract - he should have looked into the value of his plane more before auctioning it on ebay.
Re:The right way to do this (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Early cancellation (Score:4, Informative)
Used to not be like this.
I got bit trying to sell something locally on Craigslist (obscure gear and the local market would most likely latch - but ebay was my backup), had a local buyer, but couldn't end the auction.
Similar things in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ebay Item (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Auto sales too? (Score:3, Informative)
Cars are typically subject to a regulatory regime and so they are often outside the laws of chattels, goods and services. Cars are also not unique, rather they are really the opposite: fungible. As a fungible entity, if a buyer breaks a deal then the seller can find another buyer fairly readily (within reason, and subject to the lost profit for that car and interest). Similarly if a seller of a car breaks a deal, the buyer can find another seller (subject to foreseeable costs of having to wait to find the another seller).
The Court's opinion of the sale of this WWII airplane gave rise to the extraordinary remedy of 'specific enforcement' because it is a unique chattel. In other words, whereas the Court is generally inclined to award damages (fines) in lieu of the sale, in this case the seller is being subject to the government's monopoly on force in order to transfer ownership of the airplane to the buyer in exchange for the payment they had agreed upon.
Re:Ultimately, this will be a mistake (Score:5, Informative)
The point of purchase transaction is a special case of contract; the exchange of goods for money itself serves as the contract, as opposed to a written agreement specifying the terms of the contract.
In the case of eBay - according, at least, to the rules promulgated by eBay, and dependent upon a US court upholding them as valid - the contract is in effect upon bid. That's what the bidder agreed to when submitting the bid, and the seller agreed to when offering the item for auction (subject to reserve price). It is no less well-defined than an exchange of money; there's no reason to think it's somehow more ambiguous.
The point is, you can't make contracts only effective upon exchange of money, since the very idea of a contract depends upon its authority over future performance.
Re:"Sort-of" Selling Online - Guns and Other Stuff (Score:1, Informative)
It sounds like the judge said, "if you agree to a sale, you cannot renege upon the agreement". The judge didn't say, "if you offer something for sale, you cannot renege the offer before it's agreed".
For a brick-and-mortar example (sorry, no car analogy). Imagine that Store XYZ offers Product Q for sale, in a flier. Store XYZ sells out of Product Q before you get in to purchase. The store is not required to sell you Product Q, just because they offered it, and because you accepted the offer. The store doesn't have the product any more, and cannot accept your acceptance of the offer.
Vaguely like a TCP handshake.
Oh, and as far as, "I decide if I don't like you and don't want to do business with you". Every seller has that right. I am under no obligation to sell anything to any particular individual. If I have a legal reason (i.e. non-discriminatory) to refuse to sell you either a product or service, then I should not be forced to sell it to you.
For example, imagine a person who, when they come into the store, bounces checks. It's reasonable for the store to refuse to take checks from them. If they cancel credit card payments, too, then it's reasonable for the store to refuse to do business with them. If they're rude to employees, or if they drive off other customers, it's still acceptable for the store to refuse them service.
This is correct, appropriate, and The Way It's Always Been.
Re:Binding contract (Score:3, Informative)
Just FYI, for the next time you buy a car, there is no such law in the U.S. The actual "Lemon Law" only covers new car purchases, and has nothing to do with any "3 day rule". Have you ever seen those big stickers on used car lots that say, in inch-high letters, "AS IS"? They aren't kidding.
Sellers are not allowed to actively commit fraud (i.e. say the has a new engine when it doesn't), but otherwise, once you buy it, it's yours, unless you have come to some previous agreement with the seller.
There ARE "cooling off" laws, but they only cover in-home purchases (i.e. door-to-door salesmen) and home refinancing contracts.
SirWired
Re:Sale.. (Score:3, Informative)
Have you read the agreement yourself? [ebay.com] Sounds like either you have not read the agreement [ebay.com], or.... (moron?) I'm hoping and praying, in the name of intellectual discussion, that it's the first. It's probably clear by the end of very first sentence, which reads:
Re:Early cancellation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Similar things in Europe (Score:3, Informative)
The first instance court, the Landgericht Münster (~ District Court of Münster) said that the "auction" was not a binding contract whereas the court of appeal, the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (~ Higher District Court of Hamm) judged that it was. This appeal decision was then confirmed by the Bundesgerichtshof (~ Federal Supreme Court).
The bottom line(s):
Re:"Sort-of" Selling Online - Guns and Other Stuff (Score:2, Informative)
(IANAL, this isn't advice, To Serve Man is a cookbook... you know the drill)