Libel in eBay Feedback

bjbard · May 8, 2004

What is the name of your state?Delaware

Hello,

RE: eBay item 3083332242 sold by bjbard

I sold an electronic item on eBay. It was a Radio Shack auto dialer. I cleaned it, tested it (for power only), and shipped it.

When the buyer received it he said it would not even power up. It was insured so I called the USPS and they said to have the recepient bring it in and file a claim. I told him to do this and he refused. I said send it back and I'd "try" to file the claim from my end. He never sent it back.

Instead he left this for feedback:
"Item wasn't as discribed and didn't work when received, Fraudulus transaction "

This seems libelous to me, and it surely hurts my reputation on eBay. Fraud is a very strong word (even when it's not spelled quite right) and it's not true.

Can I sue this guy?

Thanks in advance

JETX · May 8, 2004

bjbard said:
Can I sue this guy?

The simple answer to your question is:
Of course you can sue him. After all, anyone can sue almost anyone else over almost anything.
However, you would have to sue him in HIS home state and be able to PROVE to the court that you were damaged by HIS post, and the amount of damages you incurred.
So, you can spend several thousand dollars pursuing a very slimi case that MIGHT (with a VERY generous judge), get you maybe $100.00. But, certainly, you can sue.

racer72 · May 8, 2004

Sell crap on eBay, get shi**y feedback. Sounds good to me.

HomeGuru · May 9, 2004

"Too" (2) good posts.

feelmywrath · May 13, 2004

Slander

If the version of the events, outlined by bjbard, is accurate and true, then he/she was slandered. (Actually, it's libel, since the damaging statements are written).

The individual who complained to E-Bay said the transaction was "fraudulent." Fraud is a crime, which means the complainant is accusing bj of commiting a crime. In light of that, he does NOT have to prove damages, as they are implied. That's what the law is where I live, and it's probably the same way in many states. So, if I were him/her, I would RUN, not walk to the courthouse to file a lawsuit. This matter can probably be resolved in small claims court. See you on Judge Joe Brown dj.

krispenstpeter · May 13, 2004

Hey feely, are you really this stupid or just playing with your momma's computer?

Or, would you like to tell this poster that you would represent him no matter what the cost for free? Oh, I guess you won't because you have no conception of law.

Geeez, where do these idiots come from?

JETX · May 13, 2004

Feely, since you say that the post is a clear case of defamation, how do you reconcile that the 'victim' suffers no real 'damage' to his/her reputation since he is not identified to the community?? Or that there is NO evidence of any damages being incurred by the 'victim'??
Or, did you just 'forget' that those are also required elements in this case??

To help you try to understand this topic (of which you clearly have NO knowledge), here is the definition of libel:
"libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others."

Also:
- It must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.
- That the statement would do harm and is untrue.

feelmywrath · May 14, 2004

krispenstpeter said:
Hey feely, are you really this stupid or just playing with your momma's computer?

Or, would you like to tell this poster that you would represent him no matter what the cost for free? Oh, I guess you won't because you have no conception of law.

Geeez, where do these idiots come from?

You didn't even offer any reasoning to support why you think I'm wrong, which makes YOU the moron. Your reply is pretty lame, seeing as how it comes from a senior member with over a thousand posts. Do you not have anything else to do, but hurl insult??. Get a life fool!! You're wrong by claiming what I say has no basis in fact.

krispenstpeter · May 14, 2004

then post the facts idiot.

JETX · May 14, 2004

feelmywrath said:
You didn't even offer any reasoning to support why you think I'm wrong, which makes YOU the moron. Your reply is pretty lame, seeing as how it comes from a senior member with over a thousand posts. Do you not have anything else to do, but hurl insult??. Get a life fool!! You're wrong by claiming what I say has no basis in fact.

What a complete idiot.... well, not complete, there might be SOME shred of intelligence in the post, but after re-reading it numerous times it is VERY small, if even there!!

krispenstpeter · May 14, 2004

You're right of course Jet. At least this idiot knows how to spell

feelmywrath · May 14, 2004

JETX said:
Feely, since you say that the post is a clear case of defamation, how do you reconcile that the 'victim' suffers no real 'damage' to his/her reputation since he is not identified to the community?? Or that there is NO evidence of any damages being incurred by the 'victim'??

Good to know you'd rather engage in a conversation, rather than call me names. Anyway, it doesn't matter that he isn't identified by the community by his real name. Most people who establish an account with E-Bay use a moniker in lieu of thier real name. bjbard's moniker is what identifies him as a seller. Do you think anybody would want to buy anything from him in the future, after a buyer associated his moniker to an alleged fraudulent transaction? Of course not. Therein lies the damage.

Or, did you just 'forget' that those are also required elements in this case??
To help you try to understand this topic (of which you clearly have NO knowledge), here is the definition of libel:
"libel
1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others."

See my response above. I understand this topic perfectly well.

Also:
- It must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion.
- That the statement would do harm and is untrue.

It IS a statement that claims to be fact. Read what the buyer wrote! The buyer UNEQUIVOCALLY states that it was a fraudulent transaction. He/she doesn't say, I suspect the seller commited fraud; or I think I got ripped off. Instead, the buyer said: "Item wasn't as discribed and didn't work when received, Fraudulus transaction " IMO, if the buyer STOPPED after he/she said that the item wasn't as described and didn't work, then there would be no case for libel. But he/she went on to call the seller a fraud. Seems YOU are the one who lacks knowledge on this topic.

krispenstpeter · May 14, 2004

feelmywrath said:
Good to know you'd rather engage in a conversation, rather than call me names. Anyway, it doesn't matter that he isn't identified by the community by his real name. Most people who establish an account with E-Bay use a moniker in lieu of thier real name. bjbard's moniker is what identifies him as a seller. Do you think anybody would want to buy anything from him in the future, after a buyer associated his moniker to an alleged fraudulent transaction? Of course not. Therein lies the damage.

See my response above. I understand this topic perfectly well.

It IS a statement that claims to be fact. Read what the buyer wrote! The buyer UNEQUIVOCALLY states that it was a fraudulent transaction. He/she doesn't say, I suspect the seller commited fraud; or I think I got ripped off. Instead, the buyer said: "Item wasn't as discribed and didn't work when received, Fraudulus transaction " IMO, if the buyer STOPPED after he/she said that the item wasn't as described and didn't work, then there would be no case for libel. But he/she went on to call the seller a fraud. Seems YOU are the one who lacks knowledge on this topic.

He's all yours Jet. I'm laughing so damn hard I'm about to wet my pants

feelmywrath · May 14, 2004

JETX said:
What a complete idiot.... well, not complete, there might be SOME shred of intelligence in the post, but after re-reading it numerous times it is VERY small, if even there!!

I was reading and posting a response to your original post and got distracted in the process. Too bad that, in the meantime, you decided to stoop to krispentpeter's level. As far as I'm concerned, both of you are idiots, and your posts are no longer worth replying to. Now I suppose both of you ignoramuses will have more time to hit the books.

JETX · May 14, 2004

Really a simple answer here.....
1) What is the LEGAL description of a "Fraudulus transaction"???

2) And do you understand the difference between a claim that a transaction was FRAUDULENT and (possibly) 'FRAUDUOUS' (if that is even a word!!)???

Kind of like the difference in my saying your ARE an ignorant crap-head and my saying "you are ignorant crap-head-uous"???

Libel in eBay Feedback

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

bjbard

Guest

JETX

Senior Member

racer72

Senior Member

HomeGuru

Senior Member

feelmywrath

Guest

krispenstpeter

Guest

JETX

Senior Member

feelmywrath

Guest

krispenstpeter

Guest

JETX

Senior Member

krispenstpeter

Guest

feelmywrath

Guest

krispenstpeter

Guest

feelmywrath

Guest

JETX

Senior Member

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential