posted on August 30, 2000 06:15:16 AM newHere is a situation to ponder. This came from a copy of a College Law Class Test, but see how you will agree on this matter.
Bidder wins an auction, and sends payment. Payment hasn't reached the seller 2 weeks later.
Seller has been informed by a third party saying the item in question is illegal and she will face legal prosecution if she sells the item again.
Seller thinks and believes that she is now forced to just get rid of the items and tells the Bidder that he can have the items. If payment arrives, she will send it back.
Bidder feels he is bound to pay the seller and e-mails back that he wants the seller to keep the cash if it turns up.
QUESTION: Is there any legal and moral justification of the actions of both the seller and bidder? If so, why?
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on August 30, 2000 06:24:23 AM new
Both parties are acting in good faith. We don't know what the item was, but if it sold online it was probably "legal" at least in some sense.
I wouldn't lose sleep on this. I would try and stay out of jail, so the seller should return the money.
posted on August 30, 2000 07:59:38 AM new
I think the key to this is she will face prosecution if she sells the itemAGAIN. That statement leads me to believe that there is not a problem in completing the transaction this time around. What if she found out about it after it had been shipped? She couldn't do anything about it then.
posted on August 30, 2000 08:21:33 AM new
I wonder...
- Who's the third party?
- What makes the seller believe he/she has to "just get rid of" the items?
- Is the seller really protected from whatever liability might exist by conveying the item as a gift, instead of a paid transaction?
- On what planet does a buyer allow a seller to keep money for nothing, especially when transaction is flawed due to error on seller's part?
To answer your question, with the information given there's no moral, legal or logical reason for the sale to not proceed as originally intended. This means that the buyer is obligated to make sure the payment reaches the seller, even if it means sending another payment (it's the original transaction). The seller is bound to complete the sale and send the item to the buyer. Final conclusion: The VERO program has gottten completely out of hand.
posted on August 30, 2000 08:23:20 AM new
Illegal why? Copyrighted, stolen, child porn, against the law to own or sell in this country or in some other way illegal to sell.
Depending on the answer to that question, the seller may not have the right to dispose of the item in any way other than returning it to the original owner or destroying the item. Or they may give it away but not profit from the transfer.
For example stolen may have to be returned or turned over to police. Child porn destroyed or turned over to FBI.
Until sellers obligations with regards to the item are clear they can not proceed with disposal.
What is validity and authority of third party? If seller must get rid of item why can buyer then have item as gift or purchase. Doesn't problem follow item to buyer. Illegal under state or federal Law?
Half a question. You get half an answer.
May have made more sense in the class as they might have been studying a particular set of laws and this was a pop quiz on a narrow subject matter.
Tell buyer no, claim donation to local large charity and sell for cash at flea market. Don't tell anybody where you got the suggestion. If it was child porn give it to the FBI and help burn the bastard.
posted on August 30, 2000 11:48:29 AM new
You have to rememeber folks, this came from a test, so sometimes the important facts are left on purpose to render different answers and to make the problem more perplexing.
:\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on August 30, 2000 12:13:29 PM new
As observed, there isn't enough information provided, particularly on the nature of the illegality of selling the item.
For example, if the item was discovered to be stolen, then it would be illegal to sell it, and equally illegal to give it away.
posted on August 30, 2000 02:57:04 PM new
If the item is illegal, the seller may not "give" it away as a gift. Also, giving the item away to bidder, and receiving payment also as a gift is the same as a sale. (Seller gives item as a gift, buyer gives payment as a gift - it's a sale. Just try convincing a judge otherwise.)
If this is a case of copyright ownership and the copyright owner states not to sell the item again, then the sale can go through, I suppose. However, the principle is clear: Illegal items may not be sold or given away as gifts.
If I were the seller, I would inform the bidder that "I have been informed by XXX that this item infringes on their copyright so I must cancel the transaction. I will refund your money should it arrive."
If this was a law class, I doubt that "sell the item at a flea market and don't tell anyone" is the correct answer.
Please let us know what the "professor" gives as the correct answer.
