Buyer claims

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 02:16:56 +0100, ß Ø ® G <borg@deadspam.com> wrote:

>
>fook me, how much, WOW

I know I was completely surprised. Given that these were one of the
first things I sold on ebay it has got me hooked and I checking tos ee
if I had anything else lying around someone might want.

>i got a complete 1963 set with the Mercedes in
>white, the sports car of the time and a green Austin Healy, all the
>track, and barriers, electric siren chicaine buzzer thing, flags track
>in the box, although the box is a bit old and worn, whats that worth
>then ?

Nice. No idea how much though

Cheers

Julian

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:59:25 +0100, "Paul" <contact.me@reply.to>
wrote:

>
>Fair point. At the risk of prolonging this, I am still concerned over this 5 weeks
>from collection to complaint (assuming we've had the whole story). The buyer seems to
>buy nothing but "slot cars" and related items and doesn't re-sell them (on ebay, at
>least). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, he is a collector and as such should
>be capable of carrying out a thorough inspection of his purchase in much less time
>than that as he, presumably, knows something about these toys.

My thoughts precisely. I know nothing really about these cars except
they had been sat in a box for the past 25-30 years. I was taken
completely by surpise by the level of interest and the prices
obtained. Some of the questions I was asked by other bidders on other
car auctions were really detailed and I answered them and sent closeup
pictures of one of the cars - it helped the price so was well worth
it.

>
>I see that Julian left feedback for his buyer on 18 June as the car had been
>collected, allow a couple of days for it to be passed on by the "collector" and it's
>still taken him 4 weeks to complain, entirely unreasonable considering we're talking
>about a toy.

It is the length of time I am concerned about. To be specific he is
claiming that the body has had its wheel arches cut/enlarged which I
think I would have spotted myself, never mind a collector who has just
shelled out 100 quid.

>
>And what about the "collector" it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he
>damaged the cars (accidentally, or otherwise) before hand over. He could even of
>helped himself to bits off them.

I did not think about that!

>
>The buyer sent his agent to inspect and collect these cars on his behalf and between
>them had them in their possession for 4 weeks before any contact was made, I think
>the guy is chancing his arm and should be told to sling his hook (in the nicest
>possible way, of course).

I have responded to him asking what he wants and will wait and see if
and what he comes back with

Thanks

Julian

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:33:39 +0100, Tone <tone@toneb.f9.co.uk> wrote:

>Just say you are sorry that he is not happy, but unfortunately he has
>had sufficient time to examine and return them and that, because of
>the time period involved no refund will be possible.
>
>Caveat Emptor
>
Thanks

"Julian" <julian@nospam.sharpuk.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t83rhvkhtgd688mir52cuanp73nubkm1nj@4ax.com...

> He has said he put them in a draw and has only just got around to
> looking at them!
>

In that case, I don't think he has a case to go after you, frankly.

Ali

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:59:25 +0100, "Paul" <contact.me@reply.to>
wrote:


>Fair point. At the risk of prolonging this, I am still concerned over this 5 weeks
>from collection to complaint (assuming we've had the whole story). The buyer seems to
>buy nothing but "slot cars" and related items and doesn't re-sell them (on ebay, at
>least). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, he is a collector and as such should
>be capable of carrying out a thorough inspection of his purchase in much less time
>than that as he, presumably, knows something about these toys.

What he is capable of doing and what he has the opportunity to do may
be two entirely different things. To "reject" the goods he must act
expeditiously, however if he was away on holiday for example and had
no opportunity to inspect them then late rejection may be acceptable.

However, even if he loses the right to rejection he retains the right
to compensation for misrepresentation if this has occurred.

>I see that Julian left feedback for his buyer on 18 June as the car had been
>collected, allow a couple of days for it to be passed on by the "collector" and it's
>still taken him 4 weeks to complain, entirely unreasonable considering we're talking
>about a toy.

You may think 4 weeks is unreasonable, and in the absence of any
other circumstances then for rejection it may well be too long. For
compensation for misrepresentation he has 6 years in which to claim.

>And what about the "collector" it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he
>damaged the cars (accidentally, or otherwise) before hand over. He could even of
>helped himself to bits off them.

He could indeed. It is of course for the seller to prove this by
recourse to evidence of condition before they were sold.

>The buyer sent his agent to inspect and collect these cars on his behalf

Unless the buyer has explicitly made arrangements for the collector
to act as his inspection agent and authorised him to accept (in the
legal sense) the goods on his behalf then it is probable that he
would be considered as nothing more than a freight agent.

>between
>them had them in their possession for 4 weeks before any contact was made, I think
>the guy is chancing his arm and should be told to sling his hook (in the nicest
>possible way, of course).

I think his right to rejection is questionable. His right to
compensation depends entirely upon the condition of the goods.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:20:09 +0100, Peter Parry <peter@wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:59:25 +0100, "Paul" <contact.me@reply.to>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Fair point. At the risk of prolonging this, I am still concerned over this 5 weeks
>>from collection to complaint (assuming we've had the whole story). The buyer seems to
>>buy nothing but "slot cars" and related items and doesn't re-sell them (on ebay, at
>>least). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume, he is a collector and as such should
>>be capable of carrying out a thorough inspection of his purchase in much less time
>>than that as he, presumably, knows something about these toys.
>
>What he is capable of doing and what he has the opportunity to do may
>be two entirely different things. To "reject" the goods he must act
>expeditiously, however if he was away on holiday for example and had
>no opportunity to inspect them then late rejection may be acceptable.
>
>However, even if he loses the right to rejection he retains the right
>to compensation for misrepresentation if this has occurred.
>
>>I see that Julian left feedback for his buyer on 18 June as the car had been
>>collected, allow a couple of days for it to be passed on by the "collector" and it's
>>still taken him 4 weeks to complain, entirely unreasonable considering we're talking
>>about a toy.
>
>You may think 4 weeks is unreasonable, and in the absence of any
>other circumstances then for rejection it may well be too long. For
>compensation for misrepresentation he has 6 years in which to claim.
>
>>And what about the "collector" it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he
>>damaged the cars (accidentally, or otherwise) before hand over. He could even of
>>helped himself to bits off them.
>
>He could indeed. It is of course for the seller to prove this by
>recourse to evidence of condition before they were sold.
>
>>The buyer sent his agent to inspect and collect these cars on his behalf
>
>Unless the buyer has explicitly made arrangements for the collector
>to act as his inspection agent and authorised him to accept (in the
>legal sense) the goods on his behalf then it is probable that he
>would be considered as nothing more than a freight agent.
>
>>between
>>them had them in their possession for 4 weeks before any contact was made, I think
>>the guy is chancing his arm and should be told to sling his hook (in the nicest
>>possible way, of course).
>
>I think his right to rejection is questionable. His right to
>compensation depends entirely upon the condition of the goods.


but the discription and picture shows there is some work needed and
they are not 'as new' if he's that much on the ball about them he
would have noticed that I did and I know nothing about them


--
E-Mail Addy obet(ng)qfy(qbg)cvcrk(qbg)pbz <---Rot13 it
watch out for spam trap in header
http://www.goodtraders.com/viewfeedback.php?nick=Borg
http://www.borg.dsl.pipex.com/
Trike Power the TRUE Trinity

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:44:39 +0100, Julian
<julian@nospam.sharpuk.f9.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:01:55 +0100, Peter Parry <peter@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>That leaves the question of whether this was a private sale or a sale
>>by way of trade.
>
>Private sale - see below

You may believe so, a court might not. I have not looked at the
items you have sold in the past. If they were unrelated and
obviously related to your move you would perhaps be able to justify
your position. If they were not you might find it more difficult to
do so.

>>The buyer in this case appears to be arguing that the goods were
>>improperly described rather than they were of unsatisfactory quality
>>so the SOG act would apply.
>
>The buyer is claiming I left something out of which I knew nothing
>about in the first place.

That is irrelevant. If you had described them as "I don't know
anything about these or whether they are original, damaged, modified
or not" you would have a defensible position. As it was you
described them as "Both cars are in need of some restoration eg grill
missing on Aston" which might reasonably be interpreted as meaning
you were competent to judge their condition (and had done so) and
that they were essentially original and serviceable but in need of
"some restoration". You quoted an example of a piece of lost trim.

Nowhere did you say you knew nothing about these cars and were not
capable of passing an opinion upon their condition. Indeed you _did_
pass an opinion upon their condition and in the absence of any
warning about your lack of skill in this area the buyer is entitled
to rely upon your description as being complete and accurate.

>I was having a clear out after having moved and after buying a few
>things decided to try selling off stuff that was either too big for my
>smaller accomodation or had not been used in the last year! I'm pretty
>much done now but there are a few boxes to go through
>
>As for the online "shop" it costs nothing, takes 5 minutes to set up
>and I did it to allow other buyers to see what i have for sale. I got
>quite a few people bidding on a number of my items as a result. When
>you seel another item it is automatically added to the shop - a no
>brainer really.

Unless you want to make sure you are not engaging in trade. If you
appear to be trading, and an online shop would be evidence of this,
then you are likely to be treated as a trader.

>>Whether this counts as trading or private would be for a court to
>>decide. At that level of trade, particularly if it continued, I
>>think one might be hard pushed to say it is not a trading activity.
>>You don't have to go through any formalities to be classed as
>>carrying out a business, you merely have to be doing enough trade.

>To trade you have to buy and sell. Just selling does not make it a
>trade.

You never bought the goods you are selling or had them given to you?
Selling is the essence of trade. Whether you acquire the goods you
sell by purchase, bequest or gift is immaterial. To trade you have
to offer goods for money. You were offering goods for money.
Someone selling skill and expertise is not necessarily buying it,
they may have acquired it over years of experience. Selling that
skill and expertise is still trade.



--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:37:21 +0100, ß Ø ® G <borg@deadspam.com>
wrote:



>but the discription and picture shows there is some work needed and
>they are not 'as new' if he's that much on the ball about them he
>would have noticed that I did and I know nothing about them

The pictures are out of focus and of poor quality. None show the
contentious area. The onus is upon the seller to describe the goods
accurately, not upon the buyer to guess accurately. The description
"Both cars are in need of some restoration eg grill missing on Aston"
does mean that some work is needed on them. It does not indicate
that they have been irretrievably damaged by someone modifying them.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

In article <t83rhvkhtgd688mir52cuanp73nubkm1nj@4ax.com>,
julian@nospam.sharpuk.f9.co.uk says...

> He has said he put them in a draw and has only just got around to
> looking at them!

If I shelled out over £100 for a couple of old toys I'd certainly inspect
them the moment I received them. Waiting 5 weeks is OTT, even most shops
that sell things with warranties won't give money back after 4 weeks.


--
Rid

In article <u7drhvcksc86mf2h97s4559gkmt5ipamoh@4ax.com>, peter@wpp.ltd.uk
says...
> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:37:21 +0100, ß Ø ® G <borg@deadspam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >but the discription and picture shows there is some work needed and
> >they are not 'as new' if he's that much on the ball about them he
> >would have noticed that I did and I know nothing about them
>
> The pictures are out of focus and of poor quality. None show the
> contentious area. The onus is upon the seller to describe the goods
> accurately, not upon the buyer to guess accurately. The description
> "Both cars are in need of some restoration eg grill missing on Aston"
> does mean that some work is needed on them. It does not indicate
> that they have been irretrievably damaged by someone modifying them.

But if the seller knew he would be getting anything like that amount of
money he would have described and photographed the cars in much more
detail.

Would you describe in detail every fleck of paint missing for a toy car
you thought you might get £10-£20 for, if you were lucky?

On some things you can do as much research as you want but it could be in
vain if you find that similar items aren't fetching much but then when
you list it two or more people decide they just have to have that item
and get into a fierce bidding war for it. Which is apparently what
happened here.


--
Rid