Ebay: seller listed item for wrong price and refuses to sell - ?

[Marcos]

An auction is a contract right?

I bought this item:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...MEWA:IT&ih=012

Its only £1 yes, but thats not my fault for the seller listing it wrong. I sent him paypal payment immediately, he refunded it the next day with the message "nice try maty", and has relisted the item as an auction

where do i stand?

[streetster]

morally? he made a mistake which you exploited, he refunded you. no harm done

legally? *shrug*

[nvening]

Well its not a companie so im thinking you cant do anything, ebay would back you up if he didnt refund, but he did so...

[listy]

yeah but winning bid is contract from what i recal from it

[Saracen]

yeah but winning bid is contract from what i recal from it

It depends on the type of listing, but generally, yes. There are some specific types of listing that are non-binding listings, and these are generally where there are specific legal requirements to complete a contract, the most obvious being the sale of land. That, for instance, has to be done under seal, so an auction effectively creates a binding agreement to sell, but isn't actually a sale. It gets complex, and eBay specifically exclude that type of transaction fronm their binding bid area.


eBay is NOT an auction in the conventional sense fo the word. If it were, eBay would have liabilities under both contract law and statute that they take considerable care to ensure they do not have. What they are, essentially, is a service that allows sellers to conduct trheir own auction. In that way, they avoid the liability they would have under, for instance, Sale of Goods Act and various amending regulations.

So, what you'll find if you look carefully is that the contract is betweeen the byer and the seller, and is created after the end of the auction. It gets eBay of the logal hook.

So, what can be done about a non-completing seller?

Well, unless the situation falls into one of the specified exceptions to eBays User Agreement, a seller not completing the sale is a breach of their User Agreement, and can result in eBay taking sanctions against the seller, including closing their account ...... in theory. Want to guess what the chances of eBay booting off someone that's actually paying their fees really is, especially if it's a regular dealer? Or is that just my cynicism coming out?

But, once you've listed an item, the seller is contractually committed to sell unless it's a non-binding listing, or the buyer doesn't meet the terms of the sale (such as unacceptable payment method, etc). Once a bid has been made that either meets the minimum (or reserve, if there is one) the seller is committed. But he's committed in eBay's terms, so any sanctions won't necessarily help the buyer get his goods. The seller breaching his eBay contract, even if eBay act against him, doesn't help you much anyway.


Outside of the eBay route, a contract of sale can be argued to exist, so it's feasible to pursue the recalcitrant seller through the Small Claims court.

However, is it worth it?

Firstly, it's rare for a court to order what called "specific perfromance". Specific performance is where the court requires the party in the wrong to honour what they agreed to do, i.e. to supply the goods. It's VERY unlikely to happen.

Far more common is compensation for the breach of contract. But, again with some limited and rare exceptions, compensation in UK courts tends to be compensation for loss suffered, not punitive. So, Marcos, the question (should you decide to go to court) will be what losses you've suffered? That might include the cost of getting the item elsewhere, and any costs incurred in doing things you would not have had to do but for the breach of contract.

It seems to me that the actual losses incurred are fairly small, and that unless you decide to take legal action on a point of principle (and disregard the hassle and agro involved), that it isn't a practical option for the money involved.

So in answer to your question about wqhat you can do, I'd say the real answer is "naff all".

You can complain to eBay and they MIGHT take action against the seller. If so, it'll irritate the seller but isn't likely to gain you your drive. And whatever the theoretical situation may be about the legal existance of a contract, when the other party effectively sticks two fingers up at you, legal rights are worthless unless you're prepared to threaten (and perhaps follow through on the threat) court action.

I'm afraid you're in the "write it off to experience and move on in life" situation.

[IBM]

I've always been of the opinion that blatently taking advantage of obvious mistakes to obtain stuff that's obviously under priced amounts to little more than theft....

They law stating that if you see an item listed for a particular price then you have the right to receive those goods at that price in order to protect the consumer from dodgy dealers who lure you into their store with the promise of cheap goods only to find the goods are actually more expensive. It wasn't meant so everybody and their brother can get hold of stuff at stupid prices. Everyone knows when the price is too good to be true, and yet blatently go ahead and try to obtain it, thinking it's their 'consumer right'. Just because it's a 'consumer right' doesn't make it morally right.

[Clunk]

Whats the real value of a new one? about 20 quid?, and that one is second hand, so maybe £15 tops. I would forget it and move on. Fleabay would charge you £15 for chasing it.

[Saracen]

They law stating that if you see an item listed for a particular price then you have the right to receive those goods at that price in order to protect the consumer from dodgy dealers who lure you into their store with the promise of cheap goods only to find the goods are actually more expensive. It wasn't meant so everybody and their brother can get hold of stuff at stupid prices. Everyone knows when the price is too good to be true, and yet blatently go ahead and try to obtain it, thinking it's their 'consumer right'. Just because it's a 'consumer right' doesn't make it morally right.

If, when you say "lure you into their store" you're referring to physical stores not online ones, then I'd just point out that no store is obliged to sell at a marked price, or indeed, is obliged to sell to any given individual. The marked price doesn't actually form any part of the contract - it's what's known as an "invitation to treat" ... in other words, it's an invitation to offer to buy. And until the contract is formed, neither party is legally bound.

Of course, a shop may be committing an offence if they misprice goods, but that's entirely different from them being obliged to sell at that price.

But it's a misconception to think that a shop has to sell you something at a price just because that's what the label in the window, or on the product, says.

With online stores, it's even more complex, because it's generally the case that the contract isn't formed until the online store confirms the contract, and even then, it isn't necessarily valid. The EXACT point at which a contract exists has regularly been the subject of legal argument, and much depends on what the terms and conditions of the retailer say. Cases like the Kodak camera fiasco have led many online retailers to very carefully review both their T&Cs, and their online systems.

But even where a contract appears to genuinely exist, it can end up being invalidated if one party didn't intend to be bound to it. For instance, the Argos TV debacle a few years ago, where a TV was listed at £3.00 online when it should have been £300. I haven't looked at this case recently, but if I remember correctly, the court held that nobody could seriously expect that the £3.00 price was anything but a mistake, and therefore couldn't expect that Argos intended or expected to be bound to it. The 'contract' was invalidated.

With Kodak and the camera (which was, IIRC, about £130 for a £300 camera), on the other hand, while it was certainly a very good deal, it was priced at a point where buyers arguably could have genuinely believed the price was correct, especially as it was promoted as a "special offer". Kodak, IIRC, eventually settled without it getting to court as it certainly looked like a legally grey area and was certainly a PR disaster. But, had it gone to court, the same argument about mistake and intention to be bound to the contract could have been made and MIGHT have prevailed.

So the point at which a contract exists in an online sale is very much subject to the seller's T&Cs, and again, a genuine pricing mistake may very well not lead to an actual commitment to supply, even if the buyer gets a confirmation email. Rarely is the law as cut and dried as many people seem to think.

It's certainly the case that many shops will sell at a marked price, even if it's a mistake on their part, but it's a matter of customer goodwill, not any legal obligation to do so.

[Marcos]

i'm gonna leave it but its a first for me, i think if i was the seller in that situation i'd have gotten in touch with the buyer to explain the situation before action

[Gumby]

I've always been of the opinion that blatently taking advantage of obvious mistakes to obtain stuff that's obviously under priced amounts to little more than theft....

Technically it is theft. Contrary to popular belief, they don't have to sell it to you. Most of the time they will however to appease you as a potentially repeat customer, as stated by Saracen. Much the same as when you moan at McDonalds; You will get your money back.

Scenario:
You knowingly purchase a keyboard in a store that is meant to be sold at £30, at £20. Technically you have stolen £10 from the shop. You have "dishonestly appropriated goods that belong to another, with the intention of permanent deprivation" (Theft Act 1968 s.1). (If you're bored read up on R v Morris; Anderton v Burnside, or an interesting read is "Criminal Law" by CMV Clarkson - There's another case involving a shop assistant but I forget what it's called)

Saracen you studying law at the moment or something?

[Steve B]

Saracen is like a thousand. He knows everything about everything. He is GandalfRL.

Anyway, small claims court papers cost 40 squids to get submitted.

[zashark]

Yes mate You should have the goods as it is a contract, but it aint going to happen in the real world.

[Bazzlad]

Small claims court costs around £30 dependant on size of claim which is added to your opponents bill if/when you win.

[Nox]

ignore it - he could easily just turn around and say 'sorry mate, gonna refund you as the cat pee'd all over it and it doesn't work now, but i have another at a slightly higher starting price...' that said, if you incurred paypal charges, morally he should refund them.

Nox

[mathewdbarlow]

He is not legally obliged to sell if there is a reasonable case for him to say that he made a simple mistake...we all make typo's etc. What you are getting confused with is where a company deliberately advertises a product at a price that they never intend to sell at. Anyone been on Lowestonweb and seen a product that is never in stock????

This is known in law as "an invitation to treat", which means that the company are legally obliged to sell the product at the advertised price. Its basically to stop companies advertising a non existant product to get you in to their shop, or get your email address or something, and then try to sell you something else.

Anyway, he has no obligation to sell.

Hope this clears it up.

[Saracen]

Saracen you studying law at the moment or something?

Not hardly, Gumby. You're out by several decades.

Saracen is like a thousand. He knows everything about everything. He is GandalfRL.

I wish.

I'm just an opinionated type with an interest in the law (and a few other things). Sometimes (like with copyright) it's because of aa direct relevance to business needs over the years, sometimes (like with Sale of Goods Act) it's because of formal training in my mispent () youth, and sometimes it's just out of interest.