What would you do???
yeah, well its a better deal than a 6g bike for 2g's.....like i said, it was literally an AMAZING deal, and he won a next to new bike for less than 2g's.......so he is serious about taking this to a legal level.
And the bike is 100% working, with title, and new tires on it in the description, and has pics to prove that. so it has to be delivered the same way, or the seller will have to compensate for any damages.
And the bike is 100% working, with title, and new tires on it in the description, and has pics to prove that. so it has to be delivered the same way, or the seller will have to compensate for any damages.
That's an unfortunate deal right there. I wouldn't try to get the bike now. Imagine what a pissed off, ignorant seller would do to a machine that auctions for a third of its value: they put sugar in the gas tank or drain the brake fluid almost all the way so they don't feel as badly for losing so much money...yeah, report the problem, leave a red negative frowny-face, but don't try to collect on the item...all that bad energy goes straight into the bike. It's the same with dogs, really.
I hear you, Spirit, bu as a matter of priciple I'd still demand the bike be released to me - It'd be the easiest thing to tear down the brakes, drain the tank etc out of what you're saving - and if it goes to court, you could get an order as to legal costs of the action as well. which, given the circumstances, I'd be inclined to grant......
ALSO, if it could be proven, based on the original description, that he had maliciously attempted to damage the bike out of pure spite, you could claim for that, too, and any subsequent repairs and costs thereof......
It's sad that he didn't take the precaution of setting a minimum price, or reserving his right to remove the item if sold elsewhere, but given the fact that e-Bay clearly WARNS you both that this is a BINDING contract, AND that he appears to be running a business on e-Bay, he would have no excuse for refusing to honour his end of the deal. Life is hard, sometimes. But that's why we have laws.
Oh, and by the way, your friend should make all reasonable attempts to pay for the bike, as per the advertisement, and have proof (if possible) that payment has been refused, then he can't lose it on a technicality of not paying within the time frame allowed. KEEP ALL CORRESPONDENCE in writing BETWEEN YOU, TOO. Hope this helps you, whatever you decide to do.
ALSO, if it could be proven, based on the original description, that he had maliciously attempted to damage the bike out of pure spite, you could claim for that, too, and any subsequent repairs and costs thereof......
It's sad that he didn't take the precaution of setting a minimum price, or reserving his right to remove the item if sold elsewhere, but given the fact that e-Bay clearly WARNS you both that this is a BINDING contract, AND that he appears to be running a business on e-Bay, he would have no excuse for refusing to honour his end of the deal. Life is hard, sometimes. But that's why we have laws.
Oh, and by the way, your friend should make all reasonable attempts to pay for the bike, as per the advertisement, and have proof (if possible) that payment has been refused, then he can't lose it on a technicality of not paying within the time frame allowed. KEEP ALL CORRESPONDENCE in writing BETWEEN YOU, TOO. Hope this helps you, whatever you decide to do.
I second what Shadow said. You need to have your friend follow through with the sale on his end. Pay for the bike and if the guy refuses then there is even more proof that the guy is breaking a legal contract. Put legal pressure on this guy and don't back down.
My buddy full out plans on taking this as far as he can now for sure, and for the cost of flushing all fluids, or rebuilding brakes....he is still coming out WAY ontop. He wrote a very polite, and professional, but stern email lastnight as he hadn't gotten a response from the seller in days, and surprise suprise withing a few hours he got a response that was basically a big old **** off kinda deal.
The email he sent back to my buddy said "you better get good counsel then!" and then went into how he doesn't even own the bike, his "buddy" owns it, and couldn't stop the auction because his computer was broken, and all this nonsense....so my buddy is basically going to write back "so you're admitting fraud then? You attempted to sell an item you don't even own? because that is an even bigger offence of eBay user's agreement and the law! and you live in XXXXXXXX(I'll keep the location out of this, but it is a very populated and modern place) and there is internet cafes everywhere you couldn't have gone to one to end the auction?"
The email he sent back to my buddy said "you better get good counsel then!" and then went into how he doesn't even own the bike, his "buddy" owns it, and couldn't stop the auction because his computer was broken, and all this nonsense....so my buddy is basically going to write back "so you're admitting fraud then? You attempted to sell an item you don't even own? because that is an even bigger offence of eBay user's agreement and the law! and you live in XXXXXXXX(I'll keep the location out of this, but it is a very populated and modern place) and there is internet cafes everywhere you couldn't have gone to one to end the auction?"
As a lawyer...i concur...i know you heard from shadow....and i completely agree with him....
there are few things that really "irk" judges...one of which are people attempting to weasel out of unfavorable contracts....the legal system is based on the idea that people, as consumers (commercial contracts are a little different), are able to freely contract with one another on their own terms and the court will only step in to prevent the performance of a contract under certain circumstances including such things as fraud, forgery, unconscionable, etc....here, there was no disparity in power between the parties and both entered into a contract for sale having the requisite state of mind needed to create an enforceable contract....because one person did not end up in a favorable position is not a concern of the court, but rather are the legal requirements met for creating a binding contract absent any legal situations that might remove the responsibility of one party from having to perform...
here...everything is in order and a valid contract was made...i see no reason not press forth as you you SHOULD be able to enforce the contract....or at the very least....obtain the fair market value of the bike (not necessarily the sale price)....
NOTE: this is not legal advice in any way. I may be off in some details as well as my contracts and commercial law is a little rusty...but overall, you SHOULD have a winner on your hands....just play it cool and work through the system....i am sure this guy doesn't want to go to court....just follow the process and he'll cave, he knows he's in the wrong...
there are few things that really "irk" judges...one of which are people attempting to weasel out of unfavorable contracts....the legal system is based on the idea that people, as consumers (commercial contracts are a little different), are able to freely contract with one another on their own terms and the court will only step in to prevent the performance of a contract under certain circumstances including such things as fraud, forgery, unconscionable, etc....here, there was no disparity in power between the parties and both entered into a contract for sale having the requisite state of mind needed to create an enforceable contract....because one person did not end up in a favorable position is not a concern of the court, but rather are the legal requirements met for creating a binding contract absent any legal situations that might remove the responsibility of one party from having to perform...
here...everything is in order and a valid contract was made...i see no reason not press forth as you you SHOULD be able to enforce the contract....or at the very least....obtain the fair market value of the bike (not necessarily the sale price)....
NOTE: this is not legal advice in any way. I may be off in some details as well as my contracts and commercial law is a little rusty...but overall, you SHOULD have a winner on your hands....just play it cool and work through the system....i am sure this guy doesn't want to go to court....just follow the process and he'll cave, he knows he's in the wrong...
Those excuses won't float - if the guy who advertised it did so with the permission of the owner, then he's the owner's agent, and is as responsible for what happens as the owner who's now out of pocket."broken computer" my *** -won't hold water - they are trying to wriggle out of it .
Only way would be if the bike was advertised without the owner's permission, and he's a minor, otherwise he's a gone scone. If owner didn't know (which is bull) fraud and theft come to mind, so sue the guy who advertised it. Gets a bit technical at that point, buy I'd go for them both in court, and maybe go for a writ of seizure by the court, pending a final judgement.
Only way would be if the bike was advertised without the owner's permission, and he's a minor, otherwise he's a gone scone. If owner didn't know (which is bull) fraud and theft come to mind, so sue the guy who advertised it. Gets a bit technical at that point, buy I'd go for them both in court, and maybe go for a writ of seizure by the court, pending a final judgement.
Go national
http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/contact.html
or maybe this would be fitting too
http://www.jerryspringertv.com/be_a_...be_a_guest.php
http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/contact.html
or maybe this would be fitting too
http://www.jerryspringertv.com/be_a_...be_a_guest.php


