posted on July 7, 2000 07:38:43 AM new
It's been a few months and many new people on AW may not have read this Spring's threads or may have missed the last discussion on this topic. So I am reposting this topic and also to answer the remarks I made in the current AW thread
There is a *HUGE* misconception that Sellers and Buyers are entering into some sort of contract, when this is clearly not the case.
What cdnboks asked of me was: "I would have thought that there was an offer, an acceptance and the intent to enter into a contract. What more do you think is needed?"
Bill, for any contract to be valid, it needs the force of law behind it; i.e. either party being able to take the matter into a court of law and resolving the matters brought before the court.
With online auctions, Seller and Buyer are entering into a Good Faith Agreement; e.g., by virtue of your eBay User Agreement, you are both bound only to certain obligations soley as a member, not as a legal financial obligation to pay or to deliver the goods.
Of course, in the case of fraud, law enforcement officials can and do step in. But this still does not create a legally binding contract of obligations.
Therefore, if a Seller decides for whatever reason to refuse payment for goods won through an online auction and decides to keep said goods instead, the only action that Buyer can possibly take is to issue the Seller a Negative Feedback rating for the transaction.
Continously, if a Buyer decides for whatever reason to not make payment or even refuses to pay for goods won at an online auction, the only recourse open to the Seller is to issue the Buyer a Negative Feedback rating for the transaction.
This is the explanation as to why when these things occur to most of us at some point and we complain to eBay, the standard reply from eBay is worded like,"We're sorry, but eBay is only a venue. We do not get involved in disputes between Sellers and Buyers."
This happens because there simply is no contract being entered into!
Any disputes to my statements above? If so, please present your legal theory as well as your opinion if you have one.
edited for syntax
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 7, 2000 07:42 AM ]
You have said that 'for any contract to be valid, it needs the force of law behind it; i.e. either party being able to take the matter into a court of law and resolving the matters brought before the court.'
I might have stated that 'for any contract to be ENFORCEABLE, it needs.....'
While the geographical jurisdiction might be a tricky matter, why do you think that California courts won't enforce the 'contract' between the seller and high bidder?
posted on July 7, 2000 12:29:33 PM new
And verbal contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on.
I wonder how our children look at contracts with respect to obligations of both parties? I am thinking of all the "broken" contracts that we read about now every night in the sports pages ...
posted on July 7, 2000 12:58:08 PM new
From eBays listing page -
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.
From the bid confirmation page -
Bidding is fun but... It also means you are entering into a legally binding contract.
Don't you think this repeated written commitment on the part of the buyer would be "worth the paper" it is written on?
posted on July 7, 2000 01:49:26 PM newDon't you think this repeated written commitment on the part of the buyer would be "worth the paper" it is written on?
It's worth next to nothing in a court of law, as multiple explorations have shown.
posted on July 7, 2000 02:22:53 PM new
Is that true? I didn't realize there was case law that negated this commitment. Any links you could provide, I would really like to research this.
I wonder if eBay will start requiereing one of those electronic signatures on the user agreement etc, that are now considered legally binding. A law was signed into place - last week I think, giving them the same force of law as an analog signature.
-Rosalinda
TAGnotes - daily email synopsis about the Online Auction Industry
http://www.egroups.com/group/TheAuctionGuildnotes
posted on July 7, 2000 03:37:08 PM new
Borillar and sg52, I disagree with you. The Uniform Commercial code section 2-328 clearly applies. Whether it is worth taking into a court is another matter entirely, but I'm sure that a small claims action against a seller or buyer in your own state would produce positive results.
We are waiting for your citation of case law that says the UCC does not apply.
posted on July 7, 2000 03:49:27 PM new
That is very wrong in the original statement.
Unfortunatly most people have lost sight that eBay is an auction site, not a retail department store.
A bid on an auction is "an intent to buy" a winning bid on an auction is a legally binding agreement that a transaction will be completed between buyer and seller as long as the conditions of the agreement are met. This is a law in the state of Ohio, I'm not sure if this is law in other states or on a Federal Level as of yet. One provision in this state of Ohio law is that it is enforcable across state borders because jusidiction is given to the state where the auction originated from. Not to mention there is this whole federal law about Fraud.
eBay does tote itself as a venue, therefore it has no real enforcement of anything, except for direct internal matters. It is up to the buyer or seller to persue legal means of enforcement. It is expensive to do this because an individual has to file suit and fulfill that ever important burden of proof requirment, not to mention get a judgement, have that judgement enforced, collect, pay court costs, congrats you have a nickel when it is all said and done.
Our company has looked into litigation against certain shill bidders that plauge or sellers from time to time, but it becomes very costly very quickly and we can generally repost an item and sell it for more than before.
One feature that I like on Yahoo, that eBay does not offer, is to blacklist a bidder, and not allow them to bid. It wouldn't stop a person from creating another account, but a least you would not have to spend countless man hours policing your own auctions.
Bottom line is that there is probably a state law in your area, dealing with auctions and interstate commerce that can be carried over into the on-line world and enforced. Most state legistlatures have seachable databases for laws on-line.
Enforcement is possible, there is just not a government agency that can go hunt down deadbeat bidders for you, as of yet.
But we can all dream of a day when storm troopers will be a the whim of people selling $5.00 ceramic gerbals.
posted on July 7, 2000 03:58:29 PM new
Now that digital signatures will be legally valid under federal law, I suspect it will only be a matter of time before they are incorporated into the auction process -- either by the auction sites or by third parties -- with the effect of making an auction bid a legally binding contract.
posted on July 7, 2000 04:00:30 PM new
Although I am a lawyer (not active - but a dues paying member of my state bar) and I haven't researched this issue or given it
much thought, my gut level reaction(s) are:
If an eBay auction ends with a bid and eBay send their end of auction notice to both (and even better if a notice is sent to the bidder by the seller), we have all of the elements required for a valid contract that is enforceable.
Of course this begs the question of "enforceable where"? Give me a few days and I could turn this into a good law school exam
question, e.g., For purposes of jurisdiction/venue/choice of law, where was the contract formed? Where the bidder resides? Where the seller resides? What state's law applies? Does UCC apply? And on and on and on...
I wish that I had $1 for everyone who has ever said (and learned a painful lesson about contract law) that "it isn't written, so it isn't enforceable". Arguably this IS a written contract as there is a paper trail for a completed auction. Among the items that come to mind (I probably missed some) are:
eBay registration info for both parties.
The auction bid history linked to bidder.
Notification to both from eBay.
Seller's email to the bidder after the end of the auction.
I don't know what defense a bidder (or seller for that matter) might have to not completing the deal. Fraud? "Someone else used my idenatity?" Mistake? "I was drunk and thought the enter bid (or submit auction) button was a bug on my screen!"? There are a few legally valid defenses that make contracts void or voidable, but that is another issue that doesn't come into play often. I know! "THE GLOVE DIDN'T FIT SO YOU MUST ACQUIT!"
As a practical matter, I don't think that suing over the average auction dispute is a very viable option. I suppose that one could (at least try to) file in their local small claims court. Jump through thehoops (including proof of service on someone living God knows where), and probably take a default judgment since the defendant probably won't show up. It might be possible to have that
judgment put on their credit card record. So how much time and money do YOU want to put into getting a pound of flesh?
What WOULD be interesting would be to see a suit where buyer and seller both lived in the same jurisdiction.
As I said above, I haven't given this much thought. Does anyone have a cite to a case (preferably appellate level) that I could look at. And if a California court has refused to hear a case involving an eBay auction, can anyone tell me the facts and the holding of the court? If so, I suspect that it was for procedural/jurisdictional/venue reasons and NOT that the court determined that AS A MATTER OF LAW a contract did not exist. I could be wrong and would welcome any info.
When someone stiffs me for a big ticket item and I have a good reason to REALLY get to the heart of this question, I'll let you all
know what I find out.
exlaw (not my eBay tag)
P.S. The above is just my opinion and should not be relied upon or quoted by anyone. Consult a member of your state's bar and pay them to render a vaild legal opinion if you REALLY care. I'd offer to let you pay ME to do it, but I'm too busy trying to make an honest living on eBay.
posted on July 7, 2000 05:00:29 PM new
I am thoroughly confident that under UCC Code on-line auctions are indeed contracts. Furthermore, in most cases, such agreements are just as binding whether written or unwritten (on-line auctions have a lenghty paper trail). In most states the only types of contracts that must absolutely be in writing are those dealing with real property (real estate).
I have studied contract law in college and we spent an enormous amount of time with each case study just determining whether or not a contract existed. To my knowledge the principal parts comprising a contract do not include "enforcability". That is a seperate issue altogether. It is entirely possible to have a legally binding contract and still not be able to enforce it!
posted on July 7, 2000 11:23:43 PM new
I just wanted to interject into all of this speculation that no set of laws or body of regulations of ANY sort directly apply to e-commerce, other than the Electronic Signiture Act and Fraud. And the Electronic Signiture Act is so limited in scope that we may likely never see it being applied to normal e-commerce; i.e. eBay obligations.
All indirect references are simply that - indirect, and no part of any agreement made in these online transactions may carry the weight of any established body of rules or laws; such as, laws pertaining to RL Auctions or the UCC. This matter is currently and has been for some time under investigation by Congress to establish exactly which laws will eventually apply and which ones will not. In the meantime, it is still the Wild, Wild, West where nearly anything goes.
Therefore, I double-dare you all to take your last Deadbeat Seller or Buyer to court and try to argue the other side before a judge into honoring their obligation made as a member of eBay. I believe in all likelyhood, no judge would even entertain a hearing of such a nature in an established court of law as would be entailed in bringing a lawsuit forth under the circumstances with which we Sellers and Buyers deal with.
Finally, since any agreement by said parties; e.g. Seller and Buyer, that are entered into during the course of creating a transaction on eBay for the exchange of goods and money, has absolutely little to no backing by law. "We are simply agreeing to agree", to make a Good Faith transaction instead.
Sorry to lawyers, ex-lawyers, legal students, and all others interested in the exact wording of legal phrases to which I am no more than a normal, untrained party to.
posted on July 7, 2000 11:55:41 PM new
You are right in saying that there are no direct laws for e-commerce, but as stated in my previous post there are still enforcable laws out there capable of dealing with deadbeat bidders.
(Begin the pull of stuff from my college Political Science Text Book)
Most federal laws are broad and non-specific, dealing with generalities; it is up the the designated agency of the executive branch to determine how the law is to executed, which in its executions may change the functionality of the law. We can point to countless gun control laws to back that up. (done, that was painful)
So with that in mind an existing law dealing with mail fraud or auction contracts can be included to cover on-line auctions or fraud originating on-line, if the law does not exclude such types of commerce.
Enforcement of such laws, I would refer to my previous post on those details.
In previous cases, digital documents can be submitted as evidence in a court proceeding such as the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case, Whitewater Hearings, and I believe there were a few email documents in the Clinton Impeachment Trial. eBay provides a very long paper trail. I'm sure if the research was done and the proper details were taken care of, a case of shill bidding or deadbeat bidding can be argued very convinvingly to a judge. Especially in terms of lost wages, duress and what not.
Something I would like to state that I didn't see right away in a post: You wouldn't take a person to court on their standing as an eBay member. That would be like taking someone to court on the grounds that they are member of the NRA, if they were envolved for using cop killer bullets to kill someone when the NRA has a standing policy that cop killer bullets are bad. You charge the person for the crime they committed.
[ edited by lucre on Jul 8, 2000 12:02 AM ]
posted on July 8, 2000 08:59:07 AM new
This thread has given me a bad flashback of law school and bar review!
Everyone has a legal opinion, and here is mine . . .
It seems to me that an eBay auction has every element necessary for a contract.
There is an offer being made by the seller. There is an acceptance by a winning bidder to be bound by the terms of the auction by clicking the submit button. The consideration is the auction price. A court could easily apply a remedy in case of breach by either party
What difference does it make that it is on the internet? If we were all in a huge, crowded auctio nhouse, the results would be the same.
As in every legal analysis, I hope I am not missing a big issue. I finally get to apply my outrageously expensive legal education
to save the auctionworld as we know it(LOL)
In Law School I never never fully appreciated how incredible the UCC is until I started living in Japan and traveled around Asia. When you see how convoluted and arbitrary business is done in other countries, you really understand why American business is so strong. That is not cheerleading, it is a fact. The UCC is a business bible that should be exported around the world!
So go forth and be fruitful!
I have to rest now. My back hurts when I am on my soapbox for too long.
posted on July 8, 2000 09:12:20 AM new
Fascinating discussion. I believe eBay completely undermines its "legally binding contract" malarkey by making the mechanisms of bid retraction and cancellation absolutely unqualified. If bids WERE legally binding contracts, retractions would be automatic violations of those contracts, subject to all the wet-noodle whopping that's been suggested above.
posted on July 9, 2000 12:51:27 AM newIt is entirely possible to have a legally binding contract and still not be able to enforce it!
Yes.
But it's not clear how such contracts differ from "non-contracts" or "weak contracts" or "eBay contracts".
Few dispute they're legally binding contracts. But there's nothing either buyer or seller can do in a court of law when the other just refuses to complete the transaction.
The bottom line is that nothing of value has changed hands. "Seller, can you estimate how much this buyer's action has cost you?" "Yes, sir. I had to file for a final value refund, took me the best part of 3 minutes. Then I had to relist the item, another 4 minutes. But sir, I'm not suing just to recover my monetary damages. I'm suing for my pain and suffering, and the health damges suffered by my great aunt Susan because I didn't have the money from this sale ....."
There are more parts to legal disputes than damages. You yourself agree that an auction is a legally binding contract between buyer and seller. Therefore a person can be brought to court for the simple fact of breaking a contract. Damages do not have to be proven, the only thing that has to be proven is that someone defaulted on the terms of the agreement.
Perhaps you should look up trade law, patent law, trademark law, laws governing loans, eminent domain laws, and something that directly adhears to auctions, contract law.
posted on July 9, 2000 12:00:43 PM new
sg52: The damages that the non breaching seller or buyer has suffered are quite easy to prove. The non breaching party is
legally entitled to ask the court to impose the legal remedy that is called "specific performance": Make the breaching party either
pay or deliver the goods. That isn't hard to determine here.
Courts impose specific performance all the time. For example: If you submit an offer to
purchase a house and the seller accepts without making a counter-offer (and all of the contingencies that you put in the offer are satisfied) if you decide not to buy the house (or seller not to sell), you/they have a good case to ask for specific performance. The hypothetical damages (e.g., pain and suffering)that you tossed out are almost never available in a breach of contract situation.
pareau: Many contracts are subject to modification, revision, or even cancellation. That doesn't make them any less legal or
enforceable. In the case of an eBay auction, sellers and bidders know (or should know) that bids can be canceled or withdrawn at any time until the "gavel falls".
Some people here have hypothesized that the is no contract and that the recent drive to pass Federal Digital Signature legislation is "proof" that there is not. One of the primary motivations to pass that legislation was (IMO) to standardize at the Federal level (many states, e.g. Utah in 1995, already have them) because there are many situations where authentication of a party submitting a document is an absolute legal requirement. An eBay transaction doesn't rise to that level by a long shot. The "paper trail" for a completed eBay transaction are very clear. Short of an absolute denial by the party accused of the breach that it wasn't ME, I can't think of a complete defense. Yes, things like fraud or misrepresentation might be possible, but I think that this thread was started to discuss whether there even WAS a legal contract.
I would like those who think that there isn't a legal contract to post what they would write in their response/answer ( the
pleading that you are legally required to file with the court if you are sued and you don't want a court to grant a default
judgment against you). Just assume that you offered an item for bid and it closed with a bid OR you had the high bid on an auction that closed.
For help in formulating a legal theory:
There are plenty of sources on the Internet that discuss ecomerce laws (and internet contract law). A good beginning point is
this site titled Electronic Commerce: On-line Contract Issues. The URL is at:
http://www.batnet.com/oikoumene/ec_contracts.html.
Another source with many links to others and a good search engine is e-commercelawsource.com at:
http://www.e-commercelawsource.com/
Assume that the Uniform Commercial Code (Article 2 - Sales) applies. That can be found at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/overview.html
There is even a section that addresses UCC provisions regarding auctions:
§ 2-328. Sale by Auction (copy below)
(1) In a sale by auction if goods are put up in lots each lot is the subject of a separate sale.
(2) A sale by auction is complete when the auctioneer so announces by the fall of the hammer or in other customary manner.
Where a bid is made while the hammer is falling in acceptance of a prior bid the auctioneer may in his discretion reopen the
bidding or declare the goods sold under the bid on which the hammer was falling.
(3) Such a sale is with reserve unless the goods are in explicit terms put up without reserve. In an auction with reserve the
auctioneer may withdraw the goods at any time until he announces completion of the sale. In an auction without reserve, after
the auctioneer calls for bids on an article or lot, that article or lot cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time. In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid.
(4) If the auctioneer knowingly receives a bid on the seller's behalf or the seller makes or procures such a bid, and notice has
not been given that liberty for such bidding is reserved, the buyer may at his option avoid the sale or take the goods at the price
of the last good faith bid prior to the completion of the sale. This subsection shall not apply to any bid at a forced sale.
NOTE: eBays "exact" auction rules may modify the above. I suspect that if they do, they are legally entitled to do so if the altered terms are made clear to the sellers and bidders.
I am an active eBay seller. I have had my share of deadbeat bidders. I have never considered suing not because I don't believe
I could win, but because it isn't worth is to me. I learned and told my clients a long time ago to pick and choose their legal
battles very carefully.
What concerns me about some ideas expressed here is that we already have enough irresponsible bidders AND sellers on eBay who don't take their obligations seriously enough. The last thing we need is to foster the idea that there isn't a legal obligation to follow through with a sale.
posted on July 9, 2000 12:20:57 PM newexlaw,I believe that a contract definitely exists, but if it's uneforceable, so what? Assuming a seller did want to take a buyer to court for breach of contract and the buyer is willing to come up with any number of lies--my password was hacked, the cleaning lady stole my password,ebay went down as I was cancelling my bid,etc., would you agree that the seller would not win?
What is the point of a contract if it's uneforceable? Even if you were to get a judgment, the person could be judgment proof. So yes, even thought ebay puts in the verbiage about a contract, IMO it's only as valuable as the buyer believes it is, so what's the point in having the language in there?
posted on July 9, 2000 01:07:21 PM new
london4: The point isn't whether eBay thinks or says that a consumated auction is a legally binding contract. The LAW says that it is. That is what matters.
It is not a matter of it being unenforceable. It is if you want to jump through all of the hoops. But suing on any breached contract is like that. I don't even want to think about issues like jurisdiction/venue/choice of law. But I can tell you this: If someone stiffed me on a really big ticket item, I guarantee that all of these kinds of issues that lawyers deal with all of the time can be sorted out. Been there. Done that. Don't want to do it if I don't have to. But I would win.
The issue of "can you collect" isn't a legal issue. The collection dilemma exists in almost EVERY law suit. It is a practical issue that too many lawyers don't advise clients about. It addresses SHOULD you sue (if your biggest expectation is to be paid and not getting a moral victory w/o any money), not CAN I sue and WIN.
As far as someone LYING? Done all of the time. In court and out of court. If it wasn't, there would be no need for courts, judges, juries, and lawyers. Suppose that the defendant does assert the defense "it wasn't me". I suspect that there would be a legal (but rebuttable) presumption that a bid IS made by the registered eBay bidder. I'm not sure that that simple denial without SOMETHING more would carry much weight in court. There are a number of other valid reasons to rescind or modify a legal contract. But they all place the burden on the person who uses one of those defenses.
posted on July 9, 2000 01:14:53 PM newbut I think that this thread was started to discuss whether there even WAS a legal contract.
exlaw I think we all agree there is a legal contract. What we're discussing is whether it has any force at all. As yet, no one has shown that it has.
Re: specific performance. Your homebuyer example is telling. In a homebuyer situation, not only does the homebuyer sign the offer, but also must provide "ernest money". After all that, in real life, this contract remains worthless with respect to forcing buyer to follow through with the sale. Specific performance, in the real home buying world, applies to sellers and not to buyers. Sellers are forced to sell when they try to back out, a daily fact of life in the industry. While some realtors may threaten buyers with cold feet, the threat is hollow, and experienced realtors move on real fast when it becomes clear that buyer is flat refusing to complete the transaction. They give back the ernest money and just move on.
It seems you do not seem to grasp this concept. Not all laws have an agency to go out and enforce.
It most causes of fraud and broken contracts, it is up to the "injured" party to bring suit.
Example: Say you were in a car accident and were hurt. If it was the fault of the other driver, the proper law enforcment agency would site them for a trafic violation. That is all the the enforement agency would do. It would be up to you to gain copensation from the person that caused the bodily harm to you. Which is know as a personal injury suit.
There has to be a violated law for which you have grounds to file suit, to have that law enforced.
Same way with a speeding ticket. If you go faster than 65 mph on the highway, you are breaking the law. You do not have to worry about punishment until someone, usually a police office, catches you for breaking the law. When you sign your speeding ticket, you are signing a waiver for trial and are pleading guilty to the charge, because the ticket is just a charge of wrong doing. You could still go to court and contest the charge.
Some thing with an auction. You can be a deadbeat bidder all you want, you are still breaking the law. A seller can file against you, you will have to show up in court and defend yourself, or have a default judgement passed. So there is enforcment, but maybe not the way you think, where there is the "auction police" to go ruff up the deadbeats for you.
Bottom line... All laws are enforceable. Auction Agreements are contracts bound by contract law, therefore they are enforceable.
Who, what, where, and when the law is enforceable has alway been arbitrary. How may times have you blown by a cop at 80mph and not get pulled over? The law was not enforced, but you still broke it. So if you want to enforce a TOS, as exlaw said, you have to jump though the hoops.
posted on July 9, 2000 01:49:19 PM newBut I would win.
Only to the extent that forcing someone to respond to a lawsuit is inflicting pain. There is near zero chance that a properly represented defendant in your suit would actually lose the case.
Agreed, the discussion does not regard the collectability of a legal debt.
The discussion does regard a contract which, at a fundamentally weak point, is drawn from boilerplate put up one party without acknowledement from the other party.
It's the kind of contract which might exist between a customer and a store when the store puts up a sign saying "This is private property. By entering, customers agree follow this list of rules". Now we contemplate the potential for suing a customer for failing to follow the rules.
posted on July 9, 2000 02:13:56 PM new
sg52: Now I'm really lost. Please give me your legal theory that someone "properly represented would not lose" for breaching an eBay sale. I'd really like to see some case law or cites to statute that support that assertion. I don't think that the UCC will offer much help.
And the contract is not as you say "drawn from boilerplate put up one party without acknowledement from the other party". All of the cards are on the table. No pea is hidden under the shell:
If eBay chooses to have a set of rule that govern certain aspects of auctions on their site, I don't know what law prevents that as long as they are not rules that are at odds with "higher law". They may not make sense and we may disagree, but if we look for them, we will find them SOMEWHERE on eBay. Maybe not until we feel burned by them, but I doubt that they are no available and legally binding on bidders and sellers.
Applicable laws and statutes are available for anyone interested enough to look for them.
posted on July 9, 2000 02:58:26 PM newPlease give me your legal theory that someone "properly represented would not lose" for breaching an eBay sale
A contract involves a meeting of the minds, and informed agreement.
This is difficult if not impossible to establish when one party says it didn't happen, and there exists no evidence that it did happen except as "buyer was there".
posted on July 9, 2000 03:13:08 PM new
exlaw: I am not an attorney and am definitely fuzzy when it comes to understanding what I consider to be complexities of the law. I know murder is wrong and I better not drink and drive, etc. But I haven't a clue as to contract law. However, I would wonder as to whether I am actually entering into a legally binding contract on ebay. Whenever I have signed a contract for anything, purchasing my house, buying a car, etc., the contract went on for PAGES explaining every little minute detail.
What does the phrase "your bid is a legally binding contract" mean to an ordinary person?It says if you are the high bidder, you will enter into a legally binding contract to purchase the item from the seller. I think there would have to be further explanation. I am a lay person, not familiar with contract law. This phrase might mean to me that I will buy that item if it is represented properly. There are too many vague terms. What is "excellent condition" to one person is "fair" to another. I agree to buy this item in excellent condition. After the auction, the seller tells me it has a slight chip, so it's considered excellent, not mint. I consider that a major flaw, have I still entered into a contract? The item to me has been misrepresented.
posted on July 9, 2000 03:16:02 PM new
SG52,
It is very easy to establish if a bidder did place a bid from their account.
Every web site keeps logs of where visitors come from, what ISP they came from. Through a court order you can get those records of server access logs, all the way down to the ISP's logs. I could find out when you logged on, from where, for how long, and where you went during that time you logged in through your ISP. That's how hackers are tracked. This technique was used to track down those who were envolved in the denial of service attacks against eBay, yahoo and other sites a few months back.
So, if someone did say that someone stole their password and gained access to their eBay account, you could trace them back to, say this came from a dial-up account on aol, and here is where they went for this amount of time, oh an here are your phone records that show you calling aol for that specified time. So, someone would have to break into your house, know your, aol password, use your phone to dail-up, find an auction, and place a bid... yea right.
The evidence is always there, you just have to dig for it.
posted on July 9, 2000 03:52:50 PM newIt is very easy to establish if a bidder did place a bid from their account.
Every web site keeps logs of where visitors come from, what ISP they came from
It is difficult if not impossible to authenticate _anything_ which happens online, as those who run high $ places such as day trading sites have found out.
Just to leap over the small stuff, such as an ISP log, we land at the end: buyer simply claims "I don't know how it happened, but I know didn't do it". To cloud the issue, buyer's laywer presents 12 different ways someone else could have done it, including, to be trivial, having stolen buyer's password by watching buyer type it in.
Try it from the other side. You didn't do it, but there it is, looking like you did. Do you think you'd be legally stuck with the results? Or do you think that since you know that you didn't do it, that surely no one can "prove" you did using something like an ISP log.
Note that the authentication problem is completely distinct from the problem of buyer acknowledging that he was there, but denying that he ever agreed to all that boilerplate, and thus denying that any contract ever existed.
