EBay Seller Not Honoring Contract

[racer72]

Originally Posted by cjw

The market prices guides that I would use to defend my argument that the items are valued at $1400, are published based upon extensive market sales research and have been the expert in this market for 20+ years. Would that still be considered speculative?

As a collector of a wide variety items from small toys to collector cars, I still have yet to see any price guides that do not listed hugely inflated values compared to what the market place bears. In most of these guides, the values are based on the "alledged" asking and sales prices, the guide rarely ask for any kind of verification. Based on my years of experience dealing with collectibles, I would very much lean towards the prices paid on eBay to determine the true value of an item, not a price guide.

The only reason these price guides show these highly inflated values is a matter of economics, they want to sell their books. How do you sell books like this? Make the customers happy. How do you make the customers happy you ask? Make them think the crap they are collecting is worth a whole lot more than it really is. Joe Bob Collector gets a nut off each month when he gets his latest price guide. Your auction experience is a perfect example of why these price guides are useless. I would bet the seller would take a couple hundred bucks for the items if you offered it.

[cjw]

Perhaps I should rephrase my question a bit.

I have taken all responses into account and reasoned that I am rather unlikely to get significantly more than the original purchase price out of any litigation.

However, would litigation, either for a small claims case, or as I briefly mentioned perhaps the seller was fraudulent in this matter, be likely to force (maybe even scare?) this seller into completing the transaction?

I have zero real life experience in these matters going to court/judgement so I'm unsure if this is the path to pursue.

Thanks again.

[justalayman]

small claims will not require specific performance. At best, they will require specific performance in lieu of a judgement the judge determines as the value.

If you really want this item, I say go for it but if you are unemployed and as such will lose no money from missing work, I believe you will still spend as much trying to acquire the card as you would realize if you sold it for the $1400.

but, for the principle, if you want to prove your point, go for it but there is still a chance of losing. There always is no matter how slam dunk you think your case is.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by JETX

Your IGNORANCE is showing!!

Have you ever heard the one about people living in glass houses? It is obvious from your response that you do not understand the difference between law and equity, nor do you understand the difference between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by West's Encyclopedia of American Law

Courts will not grant equitable remedies, such as Specific Performance or injunctions, where monetary damages can afford complete legal relief. An equitable remedy interferes much more with the defendant's freedom of action than an order directing the defendant to pay for the harm he or she has caused, and it is much more difficult for a court to supervise and enforce judgments giving some relief other than money. Courts, therefore, will compensate an injured party whenever possible with monetary damages; this remedy has been called the remedy at law since the days when courts of Equity and courts at law were different.

Also, from the same source:

For a court to have authority to adjudicate a dispute, it must have jurisdiction over the parties and over the type of legal issues in dispute. The first type of jurisdiction is called Personal Jurisdiction; the other is subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction will be found if the persons involved in the litigation are present in the state or are legal residents of the state in which the lawsuit has been filed, or if the transaction in question has a substantial connection to the state.

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. The subject matter may be a criminal infringement, Medical Malpractice, or the probating of an estate. Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear particular types of cases.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by justalayman

the fact that you purchased it for $70 makes it worth $70. If others thought it worth more, they would have bid more.

I don't think the value of the item has been firmly established. The ending auction price is good evidence that the value may be $70, but the refusal of the seller to actually sell for that price is evidence that the value may be more.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Stevef

I don't think the value of the item has been firmly established. The ending auction price is good evidence that the value may be $70, but the refusal of the seller to actually sell for that price is evidence that the value may be more.

it shows it may be worth more the that specific seller. The fact the auction garnered no more than $70 establishes the value is $70.

Just like anything else in the world; the market establishes the value. While there may be 1 person in 1 million that thinks it is worth more, for the courts purposes, market value is simply determined by what an item will actually sell for on an open market. eBay is a very accessible and open venue so while there may be a few people that are not aware of it or choose not to use that market, it is representative of the market as a whole and the price determined on eBay is a dependable value.


You can argue your point all day long but unless you can show proof of a higher value, a court will accept the eBay sales price as actual market value. It would be inequitable to the situation to impose a value arbitrarily with absolutely no support and don't go arguing those price guides. Unless you can prove they use market data, and up to date market data, and that data can be proven to be accurate, as I said before, it is only a book.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by justalayman

The fact the auction garnered no more than $70 establishes the value is $70.

Can you cite any cases where an ebay selling price is determinative of the fair market value? Ebay is not the entire marketplace.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Stevef

Can you cite any cases where an ebay selling price is determinative of the fair market value? Ebay is not the entire marketplace.

Hey, I have a BETTER idea... How about YOU providing ANY case where the eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item??
If you can't or don't... then you are admitting you're full of crap.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by JETX

Hey, I have a BETTER idea... How about YOU providing ANY case where the eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item??
If you can't or don't... then you are admitting you're full of crap.

Demanding I prove a negative (again).

Typical.

You forgot the name calling. You're slipping.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Stevef

Demanding I prove a negative (again).

Typical.

How is asking YOU to do the same thing you asked of 'justalayman' any different??
It's not. You asked him to spend HIS time trying to pursue a negative.... and I just turned it back on you.

And the reason I did that.... is that anyone with ANY legal knowledge, much less an attorney, would realize that NO ONE will be able to find such a case!! 99.9% (all??) of the cases heard regarding ebay are in small claims courts.... and their orders are not 'published'.

So, go ahead and do exactly what you asked of others.... PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!
You friggin' nitwit!!!

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by JETX

You friggin' nitwit!!!

That's much better.

Back to your original demand:

How about YOU providing ANY case where the eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item??

In Roe v Wade, an eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item.
In Bown v Board of Education, an eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item.

Shall I continue?

[FlyingRon]

And the answer that regardless of what the value of this card is, that is NOT the damages. If the guy sends back your auction payment, the damages is the costs invested in the failed transaction (minimal to push the button to bid, and another to paypal the funds). I suspect you have invested no reliance on the fact that the transaction would taken place. The fact that you think you are missing out getting a $1400 item for $70 is not damages.

As a matter of fact the fact that you can convince someone you did get a $70 deal on a $1400 opens the seller up to argue you are making benefit of a unilateral mistake.

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by JETX

PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!

Other assets constituting marital property, such as refrigerators, couches, golf clubs, and televisions, could *654 today be sold through public means not readily in use in 1984, such as on internet-based auction sites, but such sales would not necessarily generate fair market value.

In re Zerbo 397 B.R. 642, 653 -654 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.,2008)

[Stevef]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

And the answer that regardless of what the value of this card is, that is NOT the damages.

I disagree.

Originally Posted by AMJUR DAMAGES § 78

When the promised performance is the delivery of goods, general damages are measured by the difference between the contract price and the market value of the goods at the time of the breach

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Stevef

That's much better.

Back to your original demand:



In Roe v Wade, an eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item.
In Bown v Board of Education, an eBay selling price was NOT shown to be fair market value of an item.

Shall I continue?

how about a germane case. Posting cases such as roe v wade and brown v board of education was, at best, a flippant answer and at worst, a show of ignorance of the intent of your own question.

while I am not going to take the time to even attempt to research a case where eBay was used as the determination of value, as an intelligent person and if you claim to understand the legal system at all, you will understand that a method of determining value from a market, such as eBay, does provide a reasonable determination of true market value of merchandise.

You can argue all day long that it doesn't so without even asking you to research cases; how would one determine value of merchandise? Give me how one would determine a number to put into a suit to present to the court.