eBay seller unhappy about winning bid: won't sell.

[LEE CARDHOLDER]

What is the name of your state? New York

I don't know what to do. Please help me.

I won an eBay auction last week. Although the seller has 0 feedback, I researched the seller carefully, and decided to place a bid. The seller offered several expensive items in one auction package. I asked several questions and each question was answered politely.

When the auction ended, the seller stopped communicating with me, so I asked eBay for a phone number. I spoke with the seller yesterday, and found out that the seller will not sell the items for my winning bid price. The seller is a reputable, almost-famous professional, who now lives in Utah. The seller thinks the items are worth more than my winning bid; therefore, the seller will not comply with eBay policy. The seller may have tried to end the auction early but was rebuffed by eBay. The seller possesses the sale items.

If I were to resell the items offered by the seller on eBay, I believe I could profit over $3,000. Besides that, I could really use these items, and counted on a successful auction experience (I have 100% feedback after 9 years on eBay).

I have not sent payment yet: the seller requested PayPal before the auction closed. The seller has asked for one week to research options for breaking our auction agreement.

What should I do? If I take legal action, must I do so in Utah? What timeline should I consider? eBay has asked me to fill out a form but they have little leverage over the seller. eBay did suggest that the seller might have been trying to avoid paying fees, since the auction started at $0.99 and specified no reserve price.

Lee M. Cardholder

 

[racer72]

File a complaint with Ebay, the seller will be banned. Then get on with your life. You legally have nothing to sue for, you suffered no losses and will not win in court.

 

[LEE CARDHOLDER]

What about when the seller is in "the public eye?"

File a complaint with Ebay, the seller will be banned. Then get on with your life. You legally have nothing to sue for, you suffered no losses and will not win in court.

Sometimes "what's legal" confuses me. So, let me be sure I understand...

1. File a complaint with eBay, who will then ban the seller. That's what eBay told me yesterday.

2. Get on with your life, because the law says I have nothing to sue for, since I've lost nothing. Okay, I can understand this, but only if I modify what "suffering no losses" means to me.

Do "potential losses" mean nothing to the courts? That is, had the seller done the ethical thing, and sold me the merchandise I won fairly, I could have tripled my investment. After spending much time reviewing eBay completed auctions, I found that even after keeping equipment essential my business upgrade plans, the average completed auction prices for the remaining equipment eclipsed what I would pay for all the items. So, to clarify, a broken contract that let me "buy low and sell high," a business maxim, does not count as a loss. And, by extension, the time spent e-mailing an cajoling the seller has no value, either.

I've heard that the law often bites the person who's done nothing wrong, while the person who behaved unethically manages to skirt his or her personal and social responsibilities. I don't want this to happen to me; however, I wonder how legal interpretations change when the perpetrator is a celebrity? Here's what I mean:

The eBay seller I'm referring to, in this case, made it clear who he was. He's a middle-aged man who's nearing "senior citizen" status. He works in the music business as a composer, singer, instrumentalist, producer, and engineer, performing with music legends including Dizzy Gillespie, Freddie Hubbard, Barbra Streisand, David Sanborn, Jimmy Smith, Quincy Jones, Carmen MaCrea, Sarah Vaughn, and Peggy Lee. I'm not making this up: it's true. Much of the seller's discography deals with turbulent issues and, for me, has always been uplifting. Perhaps the sting I feel is worse because I looked up to this performer as a spokesman, and--for him--$2,000 isn't much money. For me, it is.

If asked, should I talk about this case, or are my "facts" maligned to the point that I could wind up being sued for defamation? Everything I've written, heretofore, is documented in several places (e.g., eBay message system, personal e-mails, and the seller's own weblogs and Internet presence).

Thanks again for the help. I appreciate it.

Lee M. Cardholder

 

[ceara19]

You have no case. If you bring this matter to court, not only will you lose, you may very well end up being ordered to pay HIS legal expenses due to the fact that you filed a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[IrishNodak]

Right now you can't even file a complaint with Ebay as it's YOU who hasn't completed the transaction. You need to send the money to complete the transaction and make sure you have proof. Once the seller receives the money and doesn't send you the items THEN you can file a non performing seller complaint with Ebay and sue for your damages.

The seller is simply going to wait and file a "non performing buyer" compaint on you and you will be in trouble. He will say you didn't complete the sale because you haven't paid.
He automatically wins. You shouldn't be giving him "a week to research his options".

Also...NEVER EVER buy high priced items from a first time seller. Now you know why!!

 

[ForFun]

The other posters are wrong, save for IrishNodak (whom I agree with).

Assuming you keep your end of the contract (i.e. pay for the items), then you can successfully sue for damages if the seller does not keep his end of the bargain (i.e. send you the items).

Here's Utah's laws with regard to a seller's breach (you would have to sue there since the contract was formed there):

70A-2-712. "Cover" -- Buyer's procurement of substitute goods.

(1) After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 70A-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.

70A-2-713. Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (Section 70A-2-723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (Section 70A-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

 

[racer72]

The other posters are wrong, save for IrishNodak (whom I agree with).

Assuming you keep your end of the contract (i.e. pay for the items), then you can successfully sue for damages if the seller does not keep his end of the bargain (i.e. send you the items).

Here's Utah's laws with regard to a seller's breach (you would have to sue there since the contract was formed there):

70A-2-712. "Cover" -- Buyer's procurement of substitute goods.

(1) After a breach within the preceding section the buyer may "cover" by making in good faith and without unreasonable delay any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller.
(2) The buyer may recover from the seller as damages the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price together with any incidental or consequential damages as hereinafter defined (Section 70A-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(3) Failure of the buyer to effect cover within this section does not bar him from any other remedy.

70A-2-713. Buyer's damages for nondelivery or repudiation.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this chapter with respect to proof of market price (Section 70A-2-723), the measure of damages for nondelivery or repudiation by the seller is the difference between the market price at the time when the buyer learned of the breach and the contract price together with any incidental and consequential damages provided in this chapter (Section 70A-2-715), but less expenses saved in consequence of the seller's breach.
(2) Market price is to be determined as of the place for tender or, in cases of rejection after arrival or revocation of acceptance, as of the place of arrival.

All this doesn't mean squat if the seller returns the payment. Then the seller is back at square one. Is the OP willing to risk that amount of money plus incur the expenses of traveling to Utah to force the seller's hand? I am a long time seller on Ebay with 100% positive feedback too (just went over 10,000 this weekend!), I have found it is much easier to walk away from problem auctions than make a big stink.

 

[ForFun]

All this doesn't mean squat if the seller returns the payment. Then the seller is back at square one.

That's incorrect as well. The contract was formed when the auction ended, and is not dependent on the seller accepting payment. Accordingly, the contract can be breached without he seller accepting payment.

The OP can send the payment. If the seller does not accept it, the OP can buy the items elsewhere and successfully sue for the difference in price.

Is the OP willing to risk that amount of money plus incur the expenses of traveling to Utah to force the seller's hand? I am a long time seller on Ebay with 100% positive feedback too (just went over 10,000 this weekend!), I have found it is much easier to walk away from problem auctions than make a big stink.

That's up to the OP to decide. I doubt he needs us to make that decision for him.

 

[Zigner]

Interesting...since it seems to me that there is NO difference between the contract price and the market price...I mean, it's OBVIOUS that the items are worth, no more than what the high-bidder offered.

The OP only BELIEVES he could sell the items for more...but he has absolutely no way to prove it.

 

[ForFun]

Interesting...since it seems to me that there is NO difference between the contract price and the market price...I mean, it's OBVIOUS that the items are worth, no more than what the high-bidder offered.

The OP only BELIEVES he could sell the items for more...but he has absolutely no way to prove it.

Again, not correct at all.

It's fairly obvious that the market price is determined by how much it costs the buyer to reasonably purchase substitute items from another seller, as the law I cited explicitly states "...any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller."

 

[Zigner]

Again, not correct at all.

It's fairly obvious that the market price is determined by how much it costs the buyer to reasonably purchase substitute items from another seller, as the law I cited explicitly states "...any reasonable purchase of or contract to purchase goods in substitution for those due from the seller."

It's not obvious...what's obvious to me is that the high-bidder represents the market price for that exact bundle of items.

Fair - there are way too many variables to take the stand you are taking. It is not cut and dry, as you try to make it seems. I acknowledge that there is an outside chance that OP could recover based on the cites you have given...but I submit that there is also the greater likelihood that the OP is totally out of luck

 

[ForFun]

It's not obvious...what's obvious to me is that the high-bidder represents the market price for that exact bundle of items.

Fair - there are way too many variables to take the stand you are taking. It is not cut and dry, as you try to make it seems. I acknowledge that there is an outside chance that OP could recover based on the cites you have given...but I submit that there is also the greater likelihood that the OP is totally out of luck

The law is actually quite cut and dry -- just read it.

It's true that the market price might be equal to the contract price. The market price might even be lower than the contract price (in which case this thread would have been authored by the seller because of the buyer's breach). However, if the market price is higher than the contract price, then the buyer may successfully sue for the difference. Further, the buyer may reasonably purchase similar goods from a different seller, and if the substitute price is higher than the contract price, then the buyer may successfully sue for the difference in price.

Therefore, from a logical perspective, if market price - contract price = damages, and substitute price - contract price = damages, isn't it obvious that market price = substitute price? In simple terms, if A-C=D, and B-C=D, then A=B, right?

Arguing about the market price is a waste of time, though. The law is very clear that the OP can purchase substitute items elsewhere and then successfuly sue the eBayer for the difference if the substitute costs him more. There's no arguing that much, and so the OP is not out of luck if the seller breaches the contract.

 

[ForFun]

It's not obvious...what's obvious to me is that the high-bidder represents the market price for that exact bundle of items.

Fair - there are way too many variables to take the stand you are taking. It is not cut and dry, as you try to make it seems. I acknowledge that there is an outside chance that OP could recover based on the cites you have given...but I submit that there is also the greater likelihood that the OP is totally out of luck

This is in addition to my other response to your post:

Ignoring the fact that your position is contrary to the law, I also want to point out that from a logical standpoint, your position makes no sense.

(1) The laws pertaining to buyers' remedies would be pointless and a waste of space if market price - contract price always = $0.00. Why would the legislature even write such laws? Aren't they there for a reason?

(2) Sellers could breach contracts whenever it suited them with no consequences. From the buyer's perspective, what would be the point of a contract? It would be worthless.

Those two points alone should tell you that your position is not correct.

 

[Zigner]

This is in addition to my other response to your post:

Ignoring the fact that your position is contrary to the law, I also want to point out that from a logical standpoint, your position makes no sense.

(1) The laws pertaining to buyers' remedies would be pointless and a waste of space if market price - contract price always = $0.00. Why would the legislature even write such laws? Aren't they there for a reason?

(2) Sellers could breach contracts whenever it suited them with no consequences. From the buyer's perspective, what would be the point of a contract? It would be worthless.

Those two points alone should tell you that your position is not correct.

It's like I'm talking to a wall

 

[ForFun]

It's like I'm talking to a wall

Well, for me it's like I'm talking to a person who has not been to law school and has not passed a bar exam.

In all honesty, the info I provided is Contracts 101.