Can I sue eBay seller for breach of contract??

[ComicGuy]

What is the name of your state? Georgia, California


Here’s the situation...

A few months ago there was a listing on eBay for a valuable collectors item. He had it listed with a starting bid of $100, but had a button to send “best offers”. The item is worth $40,000+, but the seller had failed to do his research. I offered $1,000 for the item and he quickly clicked the “accept” button. As I was paying he emailed me, “I want to cancel the sale, I’m getting a ton of better offers all of a sudden.” The seller proceeded to cancel my purchase (without permission) before I could even pay. The item is now about to be auctioned at a major auction house with a pre-sale estimate of $40,000+. Based on conversations with the seller, I know it is him who is now personally auctioning the item with the auction house.

I’ve read that this breach of contract could entitle me to compensation of up to 100% of the market value (whatever it sells for at auction) from the seller who canceled my purchase. Is this true? Would an attorney handle this case, and at what cost?? Would it even be worth it.

I feel like I should have been entitled to the item. And it was only after he got “better offers” that he declined and canceled my verified contract with him. He physically clicked a button that said “accept (my) offer of $1,000.”

I feel like I have strong evidence of breach of contract, but I don’t know how much a case like this would cost to pursue in court.

I’m in Atlanta, and I believe the seller lives in California. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.

 

[adjusterjack]

I’ve read that this breach of contract could entitle me to compensation of up to 100% of the market value (whatever it sells for at auction) from the seller who canceled my purchase. Is this true?

Beats me. Depend on eBay's terms of service. Depends on what you mean by "As I was paying." I can't say whether you had a contract or not. And if you did have a contract whether you have any monetary damages to sue for. I'll let the lawyers weigh in on that.

Would an attorney handle this case, and at what cost??

My guess is between $300 to $400 per hour with a retainer of $5000 to $15000, contemplating long litigation.

Plus the cost of you travelling to California to attend court, probably more than once. You don't get awarded travel costs or time off from work.

Would it even be worth it.

That's up to you.

I feel like I have strong evidence of breach of contract

Wish I had a buck for every time I've read that.

 

[ComicGuy]

That’s kind of what I was fearful of. Even at $40,000 it may not be financially viable to pursue this.

 

[FlyingRon]

What sort of item is this?

But you're living in a fantasy world. You're not entitled to the value of the item. It is not the "windfall" you thought you had by the low offer. You're entitled to whatever damages you have for the seller not going through as agreed (if this even were a valid contract). That would be any money you were out in order to arrange the sale, etc...

 

[ComicGuy]

What sort of item is this?

But you're living in a fantasy world. You're not entitled to the value of the item. It is not the "windfall" you thought you had by the low offer. You're entitled to whatever damages you have for the seller not going through as agreed (if this even were a valid contract). That would be any money you were out in order to arrange the sale, etc...

I thought this would fall under expectancy damages. Meaning I would receive the value of the item if i were to go out into the market and buy it myself. Since the is a one of a kind item (sports artifact btw) the market value would be determined by the hammer price at the auction.

Am I mistaken? We essentially had a contract for $1,000. He breached that contract, so now I would have to go out into the market and purchase from another seller. Since this is the ONLY item like this, the market value would be the auction price....which is what the damages would be in this case.

Maybe I’m way off base...???

 

[Taxing Matters]

What sort of item is this?

But you're living in a fantasy world. You're not entitled to the value of the item. It is not the "windfall" you thought you had by the low offer. You're entitled to whatever damages you have for the seller not going through as agreed (if this even were a valid contract). That would be any money you were out in order to arrange the sale, etc...

If they did indeed enter into a contract the OP would indeed be entitled to get the item or a money judgment for the value of the item, less the $1,000 that the OP had to pay under the contract. Remember that in most cases the damages in a contract case are expectancy damages, which puts the injured party back in the same position he or she would have been in had the seller not breached the contract — which means going through with the sale for $1,000. Here, putting the injured party in the same position means getting the item or the value of the item he contracted to buy. It is not a "windfall". It is what he contracted for.

 

[ComicGuy]

If they did indeed enter into a contract the OP would indeed be entitled to get the item or a money judgment for the value of the item, less the $1,000 that the OP had to pay under the contract. Remember that in most cases the damages in a contract case are expectancy damages, which puts the injured party back in the same position he or she would have been in had the seller not breached the contract — which means going through with the sale for $1,000. Here, putting the injured party in the same position means getting the item or the value of the item he contracted to buy. It is not a "windfall". It is what he contracted for.

In a situation like this, would it be wise to allow the auction to run its course before pursuing anything?

After the completion of the auction we would then have a true market value versus an estimated worth.

 

[Taxing Matters]

In a situation like this, would it be wise to allow the auction to run its course before pursuing anything?

After the completion of the auction we would then have a true market value versus an estimated worth.

I'd consult an attorney (preferably in California) about that ASAP. Depending on what this item is, you might prefer to have the actual item rather than suing for the money value of it. Once the guy sells it, it will be too late for you to get the actual item. If you were going to just promptly sell it anyway and just want to sue for money damages, then letting the auction go through would indeed be useful for establishing value.

 

[ComicGuy]

I'd consult an attorney (preferably in California) about that ASAP. Depending on what this item is, you might prefer to have the actual item rather than suing for the money value of it. Once the guy sells it, it will be too late for you to get the actual item. If you were going to just promptly sell it anyway and just want to sue for money damages, then letting the auction go through would indeed be useful for establishing value.

Thank you for the advice. Honestly I’d love to have the item first. But if it came to it, monetary value would be ok.

One of the previous posters mentioned a $300-400 hour service plus $5,000-$15,000 retainer for an attorney. Is that typical for a case like this?

If so, I imagine with travel expenses and attorney fees this would be an extremely expensive endeavor. One that might end up costing me more that the item is worth.

Is there a process that is less expensive to get the same result? If I win the case, would seller pay attorney fees on my end, or would I be stuck with them regardless?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Thank you for the advice. Honestly I’d love to have the item first. But if it came to it, monetary value would be ok.

One of the previous posters mentioned a $300-400 hour service plus $5,000-$15,000 retainer for an attorney. Is that typical for a case like this?

If you hire an attorney by the hour the typical rates will vary a bit from one area to another, but $300-$400 is not unusual in a lot of places. If you do an hourly rate, you pay the attorney for the time he or she spends on the case + the out of pocket expenses for the lawsuit, like the court fees, service fees, costs of transcripts, travel, and so forth. The lawyer will usually want a retainer against fees, too. That retainer is simply a fund you put up that the lawyer uses to pay the bills and his/her fee. As charges are made on the case, the lawyer takes the funds from the retainer (which is put in a client trust account, separate from the lawyer's other funds) to cover them and bills you, and when you pay the bill that goes to replenish the retainer. In this way the lawyer is always guaranteed the money will be there to fund the expenses and pay his/her fees. Any funds in the retainer that are left when the matter is concluded get refunded to you. So that retainer is not an extra cost of litigation, it is simply a revolving fund used for paying the expenses. Litigation certainly can run into the thousands of dollars. Ask the lawyer you retain what the ball park figure might end up being if it has to go all the way to trial. Most cases settle before trial, but you want to know what it will cost to go through the entire process.

As for recovery of the attorney's fees, the rule in most states for a contract case, including Georgia and California, is the each party pays his/her own costs regardless of outcome unless the contract between the parties says the loser pays the winner's legal fees.

 

[ComicGuy]

If you hire an attorney by the hour the typical rates will vary a bit from one area to another, but $300-$400 is not unusual in a lot of places. If you do an hourly rate, you pay the attorney for the time he or she spends on the case + the out of pocket expenses for the lawsuit, like the court fees, service fees, costs of transcripts, travel, and so forth. The lawyer will usually want a retainer against fees, too. That retainer is simply a fund you put up that the lawyer uses to pay the bills and his/her fee. As charges are made on the case, the lawyer takes the funds from the retainer (which is put in a client trust account, separate from the lawyer's other funds) to cover them and bills you, and when you pay the bill that goes to replenish the retainer. In this way the lawyer is always guaranteed the money will be there to fund the expenses and pay his/her fees. Any funds in the retainer that are left when the matter is concluded get refunded to you. So that retainer is not an extra cost of litigation, it is simply a revolving fund used for paying the expenses. Litigation certainly can run into the thousands of dollars. Ask the lawyer you retain what the ball park figure might end up being if it has to go all the way to trial. Most cases settle before trial, but you want to know what it will cost to go through the entire process.

As for recovery of the attorney's fees, the rule in most states for a contract case, including Georgia and California, is the each party pays his/her own costs regardless of outcome unless the contract between the parties says the loser pays the winner's legal fees.

Thank you for the advice and information. I just found out it is Washington State not Cali.

I think I will find an attorney that gives free consultations and just see if he/she can give me a ball park figure.

Have you ever seen a successful case that fits a similar description to mine?

 

[Dandy Don]

What steps did you take to resolve this through Ebay?

 

[FlyingRon]

He'd have to show reliance to get that amount. That may be hard in something as loosygoosy as ebay purchases.

 

[ComicGuy]

If you hire an attorney by the hour the typical rates will vary a bit from one area to another, but $300-$400 is not unusual in a lot of places. If you do an hourly rate, you pay the attorney for the time he or she spends on the case + the out of pocket expenses for the lawsuit, like the court fees, service fees, costs of transcripts, travel, and so forth. The lawyer will usually want a retainer against fees, too. That retainer is simply a fund you put up that the lawyer uses to pay the bills and his/her fee. As charges are made on the case, the lawyer takes the funds from the retainer (which is put in a client trust account, separate from the lawyer's other funds) to cover them and bills you, and when you pay the bill that goes to replenish the retainer. In this way the lawyer is always guaranteed the money will be there to fund the expenses and pay his/her fees. Any funds in the retainer that are left when the matter is concluded get refunded to you. So that retainer is not an extra cost of litigation, it is simply a revolving fund used for paying the expenses. Litigation certainly can run into the thousands of dollars. Ask the lawyer you retain what the ball park figure might end up being if it has to go all the way to trial. Most cases settle before trial, but you want to know what it will cost to go through the entire process.

As for recovery of the attorney's fees, the rule in most states for a contract case, including Georgia and California, is the each party pays his/her own costs regardless of outcome unless the contract between the parties says the loser pays the winner's legal fees.

Thank you for the advice and information. I just

He'd have to show reliance to get that amount. That may be hard in something as loosygoosy as ebay purchases.

What exactly is reliance defined as pertaining to this “case?”

 

[ComicGuy]

Thank you for the advice and information. I just


What exactly is reliance defined as pertaining to this “case?”

He'd have to show reliance to get that amount. That may be hard in something as loosygoosy as ebay purchases.

I have screen shots of the “Congratulations! Your offer has been accepted!” And then an email from ebay stating “Your transaction has been canceled”...funny thing is the reason it was canceled is he told eBay that I requested the cancelation. I also have the email after that where he states, “sorry, I got better offers right after accepting your offer.”