Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
EBay Got This Absolutely Right (for a change)
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="NPCoin, post: 652093, member: 5629"]However, if the seller could show that the "optional" clause was placed in there by the venue (not a party to the contract), then that can open up a whole new can of worms. The spirit of the contract is explicit in the body of the description as you had pointed out:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>However, the judge would also consider the spirit of the contract, in which case the judge may opine that the buyer had a clear duty to obtain insurance. Regardless, with the clear explicit transfer of title on payment, the judge may also opine that, as the good was already titled, or in control and interest, to the buyer, that insuring its transit was completely the buyer's risk.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The opinion (that is a legal ruling) I linked to is not very long. I would suggest you take some time to read it, Doug. This is the very same issue that the appellate considered. When laws like this are codified, they are also annotated and commented to show the intent and purpose of each section and how it relates since there is no common law until precedence is set.</p><p><br /></p><p>"Shipping" contracts are what are considered the normal, and "destination" contracts are considered the variant. The word "at" is used in the codified law instead of the word "to" for this particular reason. A "destination" contract is created when the contract explicitly demands tendering of goods "at" a particular location. The laws also allow that the buyer may elect to demand that the seller personally tender the goods and reject tendering through delegation. A "shipment" contract contains no such clause, and the method of tendering is completely the decision of the seller. Supplying the seller with a location to tender the goods does not automatically transform the sales contract into a "destination" contract, as the buyer has a duty under law to provide for a proper place for delivery.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, make sure to read the opine posted. It should answer a lot of questions for you about this matter.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Well, again, read the opine. The two facts to note about any auction that is not explicit to the contrary are: 1) The contract created on eBay is a "shipment" type sales contract; and, 2) the contract created on eBay is <b>not</b> a sale on approval even if a return option is given. Given those two facts, go back to the UCC and consider risk on loss:</p><p><br /></p><p>Being a "shipment" contract, the risk passes on to the buyer, regardless of passing of title. And, especially if risk is explicitly stated in the contract, the explicit provision takes precedence anyway.</p><p><br /></p><p>And, I have said in another post, eBay is <b>not</b> the law. They do not write laws, they write contracts. Any claim they make that it has "always been the responsibility of the seller" to insure an item is not founded in either codified nor common (case) law. However, there are some specifications that the seller MUST adhere to, regardless of explicit contract provisions and risk of loss sections of the UCC article cited.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Skipping any of those three requirements for shipment is grounds for breach, which will then open up a whole new can of worms.</p><p><br /></p><p>It will be interesting to see what transpires at eBay as they continue to try to exert more and more influence on the sales contracts. My guess is that it is only going to be a matter of time before complaints are filed with attorney generals' offices, and little time after that before they are appended a defendant in a court case. Or, they may ease up and actually let the legal parties to contracts deal with the situations themselves. Buyers have plenty of avenues for recourse if they feel they have been wronged.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="NPCoin, post: 652093, member: 5629"]However, if the seller could show that the "optional" clause was placed in there by the venue (not a party to the contract), then that can open up a whole new can of worms. The spirit of the contract is explicit in the body of the description as you had pointed out: However, the judge would also consider the spirit of the contract, in which case the judge may opine that the buyer had a clear duty to obtain insurance. Regardless, with the clear explicit transfer of title on payment, the judge may also opine that, as the good was already titled, or in control and interest, to the buyer, that insuring its transit was completely the buyer's risk. The opinion (that is a legal ruling) I linked to is not very long. I would suggest you take some time to read it, Doug. This is the very same issue that the appellate considered. When laws like this are codified, they are also annotated and commented to show the intent and purpose of each section and how it relates since there is no common law until precedence is set. "Shipping" contracts are what are considered the normal, and "destination" contracts are considered the variant. The word "at" is used in the codified law instead of the word "to" for this particular reason. A "destination" contract is created when the contract explicitly demands tendering of goods "at" a particular location. The laws also allow that the buyer may elect to demand that the seller personally tender the goods and reject tendering through delegation. A "shipment" contract contains no such clause, and the method of tendering is completely the decision of the seller. Supplying the seller with a location to tender the goods does not automatically transform the sales contract into a "destination" contract, as the buyer has a duty under law to provide for a proper place for delivery. Again, make sure to read the opine posted. It should answer a lot of questions for you about this matter. Well, again, read the opine. The two facts to note about any auction that is not explicit to the contrary are: 1) The contract created on eBay is a "shipment" type sales contract; and, 2) the contract created on eBay is [B]not[/B] a sale on approval even if a return option is given. Given those two facts, go back to the UCC and consider risk on loss: Being a "shipment" contract, the risk passes on to the buyer, regardless of passing of title. And, especially if risk is explicitly stated in the contract, the explicit provision takes precedence anyway. And, I have said in another post, eBay is [B]not[/B] the law. They do not write laws, they write contracts. Any claim they make that it has "always been the responsibility of the seller" to insure an item is not founded in either codified nor common (case) law. However, there are some specifications that the seller MUST adhere to, regardless of explicit contract provisions and risk of loss sections of the UCC article cited. Skipping any of those three requirements for shipment is grounds for breach, which will then open up a whole new can of worms. It will be interesting to see what transpires at eBay as they continue to try to exert more and more influence on the sales contracts. My guess is that it is only going to be a matter of time before complaints are filed with attorney generals' offices, and little time after that before they are appended a defendant in a court case. Or, they may ease up and actually let the legal parties to contracts deal with the situations themselves. Buyers have plenty of avenues for recourse if they feel they have been wronged.[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
EBay Got This Absolutely Right (for a change)
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...