Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JamesV6CDX]

Take a look at this ebay link..

Do you think the high bidders on this have REALLY read the description of this auction before bidding?

What is the legal position? I guess, the winning bidder has a responsibility to purchase this, and the buyer is not breaking any rules!

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WAVERUNNER-JET-SKI-POLICE-REPO-BAILIFF-AUCTION-Ebook_W0QQitemZ280044358350QQihZ018QQcategoryZ88433QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item280044358350

[Gwilym]

Bit devious. Already a negative feed back for a similar auction.

[JamesV6CDX]

Agreed it's very devious, but I can't see the seller could encounter any legal penalty - he's clearly describing what's for sale!!

[Gwilym]

I am not so sure, there is clearly some ambiguty in the relationship between the picture and the actual item.

I would say that the picture of the waverunner (and indeed the word waverunner) in the title is a deception intended to make people be confused as to what they are bidding on and to encourage them to pay over the odds.

Trades Descriptions Act covers something along the lines of using pictures of one thing to sell another.

[JamesV6CDX]

Even if the listing states clearly that pictures are for illustration only, and what if it's sold to the USA for example? Trade desc. act won't apply!!!

I think someone is gonna get ripped off.... and have no comeback

But to be honest, I blame them totally for being so dumb to bid near £1000 and not read the listing!!

[Gwilym]

True Enough. You would have though Ebay would have stopped it by now!

[Gwilym]

By the way, only a few posts to go and we will both be full members

[RonaldMcBurger]

Picture and title are confusing, but the description is crystal clear. They are bidding on an e-book.

However, if they tried to enforce payment through court I think any judge would deem this deceptive.

[Gwilym]

I agree! There is still some common sense in the British Legal System :-?

[theolodian]

I agree! There is still some common sense in the British Legal System :-?

Yeah, no juries on stupid stuff like this!  

[JamesV6CDX]

I agree Fin, that you'd not suceed in enforcing them to pay.

However, what if the buyer decided to take it further, and get a refund?

[Tony H]

Ebay should come down on this type of misrepresentation like a ton of sh*t!!! they are making an awful lot of money from the auction site and its time they shouldered there responsibiltys to its ligitamate users and chanelled some of there vast profits towards better policing of the site. Ok I understand that its a case of buyer beware however this should not give scamsters the green light to abuse the system. In trading on the high street regulations are put in place to protect the general public including the vunarable,I cannot see why these regulations dont applie to ebay in a lot of cases, after all its ebays reputation thats going to gain from better self policing

The noise you heard in the background was me falling of my soap box

[Chopsdad]

I agree with you all but if the idiot wants to pay £970 without reading what he's buying that's his look out - or is he doing it on purpose & then refusing to pay to piss off the seller?

[JamesV6CDX]

As a personal opinion which I am allowed

I actually don't think the seller is doing anything wrong. I wouldn't want to get involved with it, but if the people bidding that kind of money are so brain dead not to clearly see the word "EBOOK" in the TITLE and see the big capital letters saying "YOU ARE BIDDING FOR AN EBOOK" then they are a complete moron and deserve to pay £1000 for a book!

At the end of the day, the seller has started it at £20, the fact that it's gone up £950 more than that, is the decision of really stupid bidders.

This has really caught my attention, and to be honest, I can't see that the seller is really mis-representing anything with that description!!

It's worrying how genuinely thick as sh*t the general public can be.

[JamesV6CDX]

It's been removed!!

Haha