Sure, you can deny a charge, but it still doesn't change a thing if the evidence is still there.
I really don't think you know how the internet works and what can be submitted in a court of law.
It is just like a murder case. The murderer will never say sure, I did it." You can put them at the right time, place, and have their fingerprints at the crime scene and that is enough for a conviction.
In the future, you should take what I say as a whole, not taking things out of context.
posted on July 9, 2000 05:47:02 PM new
I don't agree that the requirements for a legal contract are in place, and that a bid constitutes a real legal and binding contract. I'm not persuaded that the UCC covers person-to-person transactions. I don't believe the cited law re auctions applies, since eBay may be called an auction, but doesn't satisfy the seeming requirements of the law. (Where's the "auctioneer"?) IOW, this is all an "arrangement" by a company calling itself a "venue" by which we buy and sell from one another. I don't think the law can be made to fit where it was never intended to go. I know one thing for sure: I'll never, ever entrust eBay or any other online "venue" that's not accountable to me with my electronic signature.
posted on July 10, 2000 12:25:58 PM new
What this thread reminds me of is my uncle's farm. He has his land barb-wired off and every 50ft, he has a sign that states:
NO TRESSPASSING VICIOUS ATTTACK DOGS NOT ON LEASH
Of course, my uncle has no such dogs, but then again, nobody dares to tresspass either.
Ebay's warnings are clearly a sham! "Your bid is a contract - Place a bid only if you're serious about buying the item. If you are the winning bidder, you will enter into a legally binding contract to purchase the item from the seller."
If this were truely the case, when a Member/User defaults by not meeting their "contractual" obligation, eBay would at the very least suspend the user's account and prevent them from placing any new bids or listing anything for sale until the user followed through with their obligations.
BUT EBAY DOES NO SUCH THING!
Even eBay knows that a contract is not valid without some ability for agrieved parties to seek recourse under the law. As yet, there is no INTERNET SMALL CLAIMS COURT, so enforcement is hardly possible, even if in theory it is allowed. You simply can not file a claim in your local juridiction and have the other party receive service. Adjudication across state lines is a tricky matter at best and within the context of Internet e-commerce, it is non-existant.
For instance, if you will not mind another analogy, let's you and I enter into a contract. We will enter in all of the elements that make it a legally binding contract, however, we shall acknowledge that said contact is neither legal nor binding in fact. Now what is the contract worth?
You see, there are more elements contained within the body of a contract than the simple formula alrerady expressed in several posts above. There are the IMPLIED element(s) that necessitate a contract to become legitimate; that is, it is merely assumed that these certain elements will apply as they are avavilable to any person who enters into a contract. This pertains to the common words Legal and Binding. It is automatically assumed that such ideas exist in fact before and after the making of a contract; therefore, it need not be mentioned together with other requirements when making a contract. In the case of online auctions, such non-spoken elements are implied even when in reality no such elements apply or exist.
Simply put: while eBay users may argueably enter into a real contract, in fact they enter none at all. Any conceived contract would be neither binding nor offer recourse, except wherein each party is a member of this organization known as eBay. This is why I initially posted that the only recourse open to either party is to furnish appopriate feedback according to eBay's guidelines for such things.
Am I wrong?
edited for syntax
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 10, 2000 12:27 PM ]
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 10, 2000 12:31 PM ]
posted on July 10, 2000 12:50:48 PM new
This is an interesting thread and I have been following it from the start.
Whether or not a contract exists between buyers and sellers is, IMO, a moot point. Few sellers would have the ability, desire or time to pursue any remedies available.
The root of the problem is that eBay does not create the type of environment where auctions are taken seriously.
For example, when I attend a local live auction, you must provide a driver's license or another form of ID to receive a bidding number. If you default on a transaction (one transaction), your information is entered into the computer and you are not allowed to get another bidder number at any of this company's future auctions.
So when you go, you KNOW that you need to be serious about completing the transaction if you ever want to come back.
With eBay, even though they say that a bid is binding, they don't really mean it. For example, I just went to file a NBPA today, and noticed this verbiage in bold:
"this Form should be used only if the high bidder is unresponsive. Using this Form as a tool to intimidate or coerce your buyers into completing the transaction may be cause for suspension."
Coercing the buyer???
Things like this, along with bid retractions (for any reason) send the message that a bid is, as someone stated before, an intent to buy, and not binding at all.
I believe that certain entities are going to force eBay's hand in this matter. There are investigations and lawsuits pending that will force eBay to become more involved in transactions and stop hiding behind the "only a venue" shield.
And eBay cannot attract large companies (other than by acquisition) to use eBay as a marketplace without addressing this problem. Don't you see how Great Collections has an entirely different environment? None of the playful, childish blue, red and yellow, but more of a business-like look and feel. And Half.com is a straight transaction.
eBay may be very well headed in the direction of creating a more serious, business like marketplace. Whether this will be through other formats, acqired companies, or whether they will actually revamp the main eBay site, remains to be seen.
posted on July 10, 2000 01:29:46 PM new
TO my knowledge, there is no person-to-person auction site, with the exception of half.com (and after ebay buys it, who knows what will happen) that truly protects the seller. Though the seller is the site's customer and the seller decides where to post the item and what fees to pay, the sites are all geared to protecting the buyer. Ebay clearly states that if a seller files a non-paying bidder complaint, it takes three such complaints against the same bidder before he is suspended temporarily. Why three? Shouldnt it only take one? Yahoo has bidders with 80 IDs and hundreds of negative feedback still active. They have sellers doing this too. I still think there is a crying need for a site that bills itself as the "safe auction site" where EVERYONE, bidder and seller, is credit card verified. Where a winning bid means you are immediately charged something (I would suggest that the bidder's card be charged the listing and closing fees and the seller only has to collect the balance).
posted on November 16, 2000 07:53:52 AM new
The UCC is a code that has been "adopted" by all states except Louisiana. It is applicable as between commercial entities. It is also one of the most convoluted strangely interpreted codes ever used. It produces odd results and has contradictary terms and concepts.
eBay interactions can offer evidence of a contract, but that is all. Electronic signals from a PC have not been determined to constitute personal affirmations. A digital "signature" is untested regarding authenticity, that is, is the signature dispositive of an individual or of a particular machine.
Under these conditions, Promissory Estoppel would seem to apply. But, the "promises" made in an eBay transaction appear to be made by eBay and not the individuals involved, e.g., eBay states that the members actions and terms are binding, the individuals themselves do not produce these terms, nor is it clear that the individuals ratify these terms in any certain measure. eBay's statements regarding this matter may again lead eBay into court as a guarantor.
All a buyer need do is refute any claim that they made an offer. All a seller need do is refute any claim that an offer was accepted or an accord was reached. This drives the analysis to electronic signals, who initiated them, and what was the intent of the persons initiating the signals. An email auto-responder, bots, spiders, crawlers, programed bidding, etc., may pop up in this analysis - and who knows how that will turn out.
It seems to be a " my equipment interacted with your equipment through eBay's equipment " , what is the legal result ?
The first suits to address many of these questions will in all likleyhood come from "online" stock trading. It seems to have all the elements that are addressed in our transactions, and there will inevitably be a large damages case arise from the stock trading.
As many have learned, too late unfortunatley, big ticket items should not be bought or sold at online auctions. The buyer may protect himself by using a credit card, but this does nothing for the seller in the event of a charge back or credit card fraud.
Contracts and user agreements remain dormant when events meet the expectations of those involved. These elements become critical when things go wrong, yet few are forward thinking enough to propose how things may go wrong and how agreements will effect the outcome.