posted on July 9, 2004 08:47:41 AM new
I don't normally watch the People's Court, but while flipping though the stations I heard the word "eBay" and stopped changing stations immediately. This is interesting:
An eBay seller was suing a bidder for breach of contract and slander. The bidder backed out on a $400+ deal and wrote slanderous relatiatory feedback stating that he received pornographic material in his package instead of his item. The seller sells children's toys. Not only was he an NPB, but a vindictive person as well.
The judge let him have it with both barrels. Not only was the eBay contract upheld and the NPB had to pay for the items he won, he was also slapped with a $1,000 slander judgement and ordered to have it removed from eBay BEFORE leaving the courthouse. The judge had a lot of things to say to this defendant.
Hurray! Hopefully, there were a lot of NPBs and practicing retaliatory feedback leavers watching the show!
posted on July 9, 2004 04:30:45 PM new
Actually, I looked up the seller's feedback. It WAS removed...well...the same words were there but turned into a neutral. I need a life...
posted on July 10, 2004 09:59:24 AM new
I DO watch the People's Court and saw this one. She really socked it to the 30 year old idiot playing with Mommy's computer. I do think Judge Millian (sp?) uses eBay quite regularlly because she has mentioned them in a few of the cases. And I know when she is trying to find the "used" value of something she will bring back print-outs from eBay. He was ordered to add an amendant to his neg feedback saying that he lied. He wasn't ordered to have it removed. Though I read somewhere that if there is a court order to remove a feedback, eBay has to comply. In this case, she just ordered him to add a reply.
I wish I knew the sellers ID, I'd check and see if the feedback was removed completely after the court case.
*Teresa*
To answer one of the posts, the People's Court is like any other court, other than it is televised. The judge on these programs have to know the law in other states in order to rule appropriately. Whatever the judge says, stands in any state.
Also, the disclaimer at the end states that there is a fund by which the defendant and plaintiff are paid from. Say there is a $1,000.00 fund for a case. If the plaintiff wins a judgment for $900.00. He gets the judgment and whatever is left over, they split. In the example, the plaintiff would get $950.00 and the defendant gets $50.00. That's the way I understand it to work...
[ edited by lovetosell on Jul 10, 2004 10:06 AM ]
That's the link to the feedback page. It was mutually withdrawn but the feedback is still there. This guy didn't abide by the judge's order to put a comment with the feedback either. I wouldn't stand for this comment to be left hanging there!
)