Buyer claims

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 23:09:03 +0100, Peter Parry <peter@wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:

>
>The pictures are out of focus and of poor quality.

About the same as most on ebay then

>None show the
>contentious area.

Because to my mind there was nothing contentious. Should I have taken
detailed photos of every single aspect exterior and interior just in
case?

>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.

'Some' can mean many things.

>It does not indicate
>that they have been irretrievably damaged by someone modifying them.

I do not believe they were damaged or if they were it was not obvious
and could not be easily detected.

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

>
>You may think 4 weeks is unreasonable, and in the absence of any
>other circumstances then for rejection it may well be too long.

He was too busy apparently

>
>>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.

This is the main point I think has got lost in all of this. I do not
have such evidence and have no way of contesting the claim except that
I did not notice it and neither did his "agent" on collection.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:28:30 +0100, Julian
<julian@nospam.sharpuk.f9.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:20:09 +0100, Peter Parry <peter@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You may think 4 weeks is unreasonable, and in the absence of any
>>other circumstances then for rejection it may well be too long.
>
>He was too busy apparently
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>This is the main point I think has got lost in all of this. I do not
>have such evidence and have no way of contesting the claim except that
>I did not notice it and neither did his "agent" on collection.
>


so in his attempt to renovate it, he might have damaged it and then
said it was like that upon arrival/inspection


--
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 Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:15:24 +0100, Ridwan Hughes wrote:

> If you want to do thumbnails and need any help with html, just shout.

OVER HERE!!

I have my pics on my own webspace, but I haven't sussed thumbnails
yet. }

--
Ian Cox
Sutton-in-Ashfield
icq 116510696
Remove my hat to email me.

In article <14c64h9rbv243.1j2qarwd1wydw$.dlg@40tude.net>, ian-
coxtit@ferntlworld.com says...
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:15:24 +0100, Ridwan Hughes wrote:
>
> > If you want to do thumbnails and need any help with html, just shout.
>
> OVER HERE!!
>
> I have my pics on my own webspace, but I haven't sussed thumbnails
> yet. }

It's probably easier to do than you think. This is how I do mine:

You need two sets of images on your webspace, high detail images (up to
say 800x600 res) and thumbnail pics of those images.
If you only have say 3 images then scale down your high detail images by
33%, apply a sharpen filter and save, but if you have half a dozen or
more then scale them down to 25% - 20% and apply a sharpen filter.

Save your large images as [itemname]01.jpg, [itemname]02.jpg etc.
and your thumbnails as [itemname]01t.jpg, [itemname]02t.jpg etc.

In your description add this:

<hr><center><font size=-1>(click to enlarge, image will open in new
window)</font>
<a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]01.jpg" target="_blank"><img
src="http://yoururl/[itemname]01t.jpg"></a>
<a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]02.jpg" target="_blank"><img
src="http://yoururl/[itemname]02t.jpg"></a>
<a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]03.jpg" target="_blank"><img
src="http://yoururl/[itemname]03t.jpg"></a>
etc.

but without the wordwrapping, keeping each image link+thumbnail code on
a single line, this ensures there will be a small but significant gap
between the images displayed in the description.


--
Rid

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 17:56:34 +0100, Ridwan Hughes wrote:

> In article <14c64h9rbv243.1j2qarwd1wydw$.dlg@40tude.net>, ian-
> coxtit@ferntlworld.com says...
>> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:15:24 +0100, Ridwan Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> If you want to do thumbnails and need any help with html, just shout.
>>
>> OVER HERE!!
>>
>> I have my pics on my own webspace, but I haven't sussed thumbnails
>> yet. }
>
> It's probably easier to do than you think. This is how I do mine:
>
> You need two sets of images on your webspace, high detail images (up to
> say 800x600 res) and thumbnail pics of those images.
> If you only have say 3 images then scale down your high detail images by
> 33%, apply a sharpen filter and save, but if you have half a dozen or
> more then scale them down to 25% - 20% and apply a sharpen filter.
>
> Save your large images as [itemname]01.jpg, [itemname]02.jpg etc.
> and your thumbnails as [itemname]01t.jpg, [itemname]02t.jpg etc.
>
> In your description add this:
>
> <hr><center><font size=-1>(click to enlarge, image will open in new
> window)</font>
> <a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]01.jpg" target="_blank"><img
> src="http://yoururl/[itemname]01t.jpg"></a>
> <a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]02.jpg" target="_blank"><img
> src="http://yoururl/[itemname]02t.jpg"></a>
> <a href="http://yoururl/[itemname]03.jpg" target="_blank"><img
> src="http://yoururl/[itemname]03t.jpg"></a>
> etc.
>
> but without the wordwrapping, keeping each image link+thumbnail code on
> a single line, this ensures there will be a small but significant gap
> between the images displayed in the description.

Thanks for that Rid, I'll try it when I sort out my next lot of
auctions!

--
Ian Cox
Sutton-in-Ashfield
icq 116510696
Remove my hat to email me.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:15:24 +0100, Ridwan Hughes
<fox@ridhughz.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>I try to take good photos of my items, I probably took one or two photos
>than I needed of this particular item but the initial images are
>thumbnails so the page still loads fairly quickly on a modem connection
>like mine.
>http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...tem=3132927320

Nice

>
>I've learnt a few things about photographing for eBay;
>

Thanks, very useful advice

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 02:30:58 +0100, Julian
<julian@nospam.sharpuk.f9.co.uk> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 22:39:41 +0100, Peter Parry <peter@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:

>>...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.
>
>An example not an exhaustive list.

Indeed not, but illustrating that you apparently knew enough about
them to pass comment as to their condition. The buyer is entitled to
assume (in the absence of anything directly to the contrary) that the
seller knows the goods he is selling.

>You are strectching reasonable. If
>I had a history trading in these items then perhaps but at the time I
>had no such history.

On ebay perhaps - you might have been selling such items elsewhere
for years. It isn't the buyers responsibility to check if you are
competent to make the statements you have.

>It might also be reasonable to interpret looking
>at this item and the others I was selling that I hadn't got a clue
>what I actually was selling.

It might, except that a buyer is entitled to think you do know what
you are selling :-)

>>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.
>
>Then I reckon 99% of ebay items would fail that test

Quite possibly, it doesn't make them legal.

>>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.
>
>So all sellers on ebay are engaged in trade and thus fall under SOGA?

All sellers fall under the SoGA to some degree whether private or
trade.For example the requirement to describe goods accurately
applies equally to private and trade sellers. On the other hand the
requirement about quality of the goods applies only to trade sellers.


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