eBay transaction turned sour

[DennyG]

I sold an old motorcycle on eBay to a fellow in Arkansas. I live in Virginia. He has decided that the bike was mis-represented and wants a judgement in small claims court. This is a ridiculous claim, as the bike was sold 'as-is' and there were no mis-statement regarding its condition. I would assume that the relevant jurisdiction is Virginia since that is where the seller and the transaction occurred. I just recieved a letter from a District Court in Arkansas. What is the currect jurisdiction to address this issue?What is the name of your state?

 

[SnowCajun]

I sold an old motorcycle on eBay to a fellow in Arkansas. I live in Virginia. He has decided that the bike was mis-represented and wants a judgement in small claims court. This is a ridiculous claim, as the bike was sold 'as-is' and there were no mis-statement regarding its condition. I would assume that the relevant jurisdiction is Virginia since that is where the seller and the transaction occurred. I just recieved a letter from a District Court in Arkansas. What is the currect jurisdiction to address this issue?What is the name of your state?

I can't help but think of an old saying my mother used all the time when I was a child, I'm 55 now. She used to say, "people in Hell want ice water too" when I said I wanted something one too many times. "As is" should be "as is", I'm not sure why they purchased something "as is" and then are saying it was misrepresented. I'm not an attorney but I know when you buy something "as is" that means you've accepted it in the condition it's in being fully aware that it either has, or may have, condition problems and comes with absolutely zero warranty.

Does he have the motorcycle already? If so how'd he get it, meaning how was it shipped to him and did he pay shipping? If it was shipped to him you may find it smarter to return his money minus shipping charges both ways, and the eBay listing and sales fees you incurred, which will be a good chunk of money and I'm sure won't please him, but it'll show both him and the court that you've at least made an effort to do what was right, even if it this guy is being an idiot.

The buyer knew before hand that the item was "as is", so they made the choice to purchase it with that stipulation. I'm not sure what's going on with him, but anyone can sue anyone for anything, and he may be trying to use that into scaring you into giving him back his money. That doesn't mean he's right, or will even probably win, but it can mean a good bit of inconvenience to you to defend yourself. Personally I'd try the refund route with the stipulation that they pay shipping both ways and pay your eBay fees to make you whole again without any losses at all on your part for his making what he felt to be a bad decision.

One last thought, though I don't know how much money is tied up in this transaction, but maybe a letter from your attorney explaining the "as is" law would be worth the expense and get his attention as much as the one from the District Court in Arkansas got yours!

Just my 2 cents,
Good luck with it and keep us posted,
SnowCajun

 

[BoredAtty]

I sold an old motorcycle on eBay to a fellow in Arkansas. I live in Virginia. He has decided that the bike was mis-represented and wants a judgement in small claims court. This is a ridiculous claim, as the bike was sold 'as-is' and there were no mis-statement regarding its condition. I would assume that the relevant jurisdiction is Virginia since that is where the seller and the transaction occurred. I just recieved a letter from a District Court in Arkansas. What is the currect jurisdiction to address this issue?What is the name of your state?

Arkansas does not have jurisdiction...Virginia does. Therefore, you should file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (via mail). The buyer would then need to sue you in VA.

If you are ultimately sued in the proper jurisdiction, you won't be protected by the "as is" term if you actually did misrepresent the condition of the item, particularly since you were aware that the buyer was relying entirely upon your description.

As crazy at it sounds, there was a guy in here not long ago who lost a lawsuit after selling a boat "as is," despite the fact that the buyer physically inspected it and had a test drive. In a nutshell, the judge decided that his statement about the motor running well was a misrepresentation since it conked out shortly after the sale. It was a good lesson for sellers.

 

[beachblonde]

I believe in the boat case the judge ruled for the seller, since the buyer had the boat for several months and used it several times. it too was sold as is.

I believe also that small claims court verdicts are different than criminal court. If you do not pay then the only recourse the planiff has against the defendant is to bring the case back to small claims court and sue for non-pymt.

 

[BoredAtty]

I believe in the boat case the judge ruled for the seller, since the buyer had the boat for several months and used it several times. it too was sold as is.

We're talking about different cases. The case I was referring to is this: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=369614&page

The buyer won his case against the seller.

I believe also that small claims court verdicts are different than criminal court. If you do not pay then the only recourse the planiff has against the defendant is to bring the case back to small claims court and sue for non-pymt.

I don't know if this is directed at me or not, but I'm confused.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

Arkansas does not have jurisdiction...Virginia does. Therefore, you should file a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (via mail). The buyer would then need to sue you in VA.

If you are ultimately sued in the proper jurisdiction, you won't be protected by the "as is" term if you actually did misrepresent the condition of the item, particularly since you were aware that the buyer was relying entirely upon your description.

As crazy at it sounds, there was a guy in here not long ago who lost a lawsuit after selling a boat "as is," despite the fact that the buyer physically inspected it and had a test drive. In a nutshell, the judge decided that his statement about the motor running well was a misrepresentation since it conked out shortly after the sale. It was a good lesson for sellers.

I still cant believe the outcome of that one! I wonder if that guy ever appealed, he was going to.

 

[BoredAtty]

I still cant believe the outcome of that one! I wonder if that guy ever appealed, he was going to.

I hope he did. Based on what he wrote here (and if I recall I also looked at his ad), I would have ruled for him. I think the judge had a point with regard to his claims about the engine being in excellent condition, but the bottom line is that the buyer inspected it, the seller never proclaimed to be an expert with engines (so his comments should have been viewed as just puffing), and the buyer apparently ignored various warnings that would have saved the engine from quite a bit of damage.

Oh well.