Dirty little eBay trick
- Thread starter tater415
- Start date
dude, its on the site, I'm just not searching through it right now to find it, I read the seller update when it was anounced more than a year ago I just don't have the time to find it, but I know it. Calm down.
Lazarus Long
Super Member
What is it that you know? Ebay has never claimed to give a boost in search results to anyone(Not counting promoted listings). Could you imagine the uproar if they admitted to that? I think you misinterpreted what ebay was telling you. In order to qualify for the 10% discount in fees and get that little badge next to your listing you need to do three things. Offer free shipping, 1 day handling, and free 30 day returns. I have experimented a little with free shipping. It has not increased my sales one bit. If anything, I get buyers trying to beat me down even more on price.
Lazarus Long
Super Member
You typed this.. Not sure how else I'm supposed to take it?
I have been asking you for specifics about how I am penalized in searches for not having 1 day handling.
Ashfan
Super Member
Just as a matter of interest, you could certainly bring an eBay seller to court to enforce a sale. A contract is formed when you have offer, acceptance, consideration and the ability to form a contract. A listing on eBay constitutes an offer. If someone bids on the item at a bid higher than the minimum bid, or agrees to a BIN price, you have acceptance. Payment is the consideration, although consideration doesn't necessarily require an immediate payment. Consideration can be an agreement to pay in the future (you drive a car off the lot with no money down and the first payment not due until next month, there is still consideration based on the mutual agreements to perform). Then there's the requirement that both parties have the ability to contract, i.e. aren't minors or under some sort of mental disability, etc.
In theory perhaps.In practice, virtually impossible.
Not any different than attempting to force a non-paying buyer to pay. Good luck with that too.
IMF_Pioneer
Super Member
What "Asfan" has written is absolutely correct and supports what I have suggested earlier on in this thread until another member wanted to treat me like I was Judge Judy.
But as I also said it's all about the viability and whether someone is prepared to throw enough cash in to enforce what is essentially Contract Law.
Anyway that original seller has pulled the listing and sold it offline, would we expect anything else of this seller ?? I don't think so. These are the sort of people that couldn't lay straight in bed at night.
But as I also said it's all about the viability and whether someone is prepared to throw enough cash in to enforce what is essentially Contract Law.
Anyway that original seller has pulled the listing and sold it offline, would we expect anything else of this seller ?? I don't think so. These are the sort of people that couldn't lay straight in bed at night.
Lazarus Long
Super Member
You can try to sue anybody for anything, but good luck winning that case. If the seller refunds the money, it is going to be a very difficult case to win!
IMF_Pioneer
Super Member
Maybe in Michigan, but not in Australia. Quick back pedalling is not an excuse for guilt.
While the elements required to substantiate a contract breech MAY all be present, one also requires a court with jurisdiction for the subject matter of the case.
Sorry to disappoint, but in cases where a complainant and a defendant are in different states, a diversity case, the "actual" damages must currently exceed $10K to file. It would be best to simply let this one go...
Update: The I incorrectly stated that the diversity minimum is $10K. Actually, it is $75K. Please see my corrective post below. My apologies.
Rich P
Last edited:
So, you are saying he is so crooked they will screw him into the ground when he dies?
Lazarus Long
Super Member
well, we are talking about something that happened in the USA, so I really have no idea where Australias legal system comes into any of this. Listen, this wouldn't go anywhere in court. The buyer got his money back. What exactly would he be suing for? The receiver was damaged. At least that is the claim. You would have to prove that wrong. It isn't going to happen. Not to mention that RichP has chimed in and explained that the claim needs to exceed 10K, which it does not.
I was indeed incorrect, which is very bad for a member of the legal community. My apologies. It was worse than I remembered. Actually civil diversity claims require actual damages in excess of $75K (exclusive of fees, costs, and interest) in order to be filed. I suppose you could file, but it would be summarily dismissed, and the filing attorney could face sanctions for incompetence. Class actions are different, but those are not in view here. Refer to the relevant section in the United States Code (28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)).
Ref: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/diversity_jurisdiction
Rich P
Last edited:
Lazarus Long
Super Member
Couple questions for you,
Lets say that this situation did not cross state lines. Are there limits involved then? As long as the money was refunded, what exactly could you claim as a loss or damages?
Most jurisdictions have minimums in order to file at the superior court level (generally $5-10K), otherwise the case goes to a small claims court. Generally, appeals for small clams court are brought at the superior court level.
Claims must be for actual damages, not speculative losses, unless the claimant has taken actions against his own interest in anticipation of contract fulfillment (purchase of equipment for the expected item, upgrade of an item in anticipation of sale and responsive to specific purchaser request(s), etc.). Such damages MAY qualify as contributory to claimed damages for the purposes of the case.
It gets a bit trickier when the entity/entities involved are corporations or trusts.
By the way, this is not intended as legal counsel, just general discussion. For legal counsel, please consult licensed, competent representation in your particular jurisdiction.
Enjoy,
Rich P
Last edited:
