grrrrrr eBay numpties

That's a fair point, but I think that the price isn't necessarily the only factor I'd take in to account. If it was clear that the seller had made a genuine mistake, then I'd be the last person to kick up a fuss.

However, I think the case I'm referring to is more like what dougf8 mentioned, especially as it was a poor photo and a poor description:



Tempting, but the thing is that I'm not really bothered about getting the camera (it would have been nice, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it), it's more the principle and the matter of making sure the seller doesn't do it to others. I'll look in to the process and let you know how I get on...

its called an invitation to treat, you then make the offer when you take the item to the till/checkout. The seller then accepts your offer as you hand over the cash.

Thus you can be refused a sale at any point. Shops honour prices advertised so as not to loose face. However you get to the till and they can ask for more or less.

Once you hand over the money the contract is made. If you paid by BIN then the money hit the account then the contract is made. The refund is a minor issue. If in their T&Cs they say that they can refund where pricing errors occur then fair enough.

I'm not popping back to tesco with the ink sets I bought for £12.50 which go for £40 !!!

In fact I think this is fairly clear cut.

In law a contract may be voided on the basis that a mistake has been made by one or both of the parties.

Here the circumstances are that a reasonably desirable F/1.4 lens + some old body is priced on a BIN basis at the equivalent of a decent bottle of wine.

Is it reasonable to assume that the seller made a mistake in setting this price? The answer is of course.

Not "of course" as expensive lenses go all the time on old bodies, it's par for the course. If they are joe bloggs it's ignorance, if they are a trader it's a mistake.

Doug, you seem to be arguing on favour of the law of the jungle principle that the smart should be allowed to take advantage of the less well informed.

But contrary to widespread perception law of contract actually contains a variety of measures to guard against this.

The price is not drastically different from value. 10 vs 50. Not as in Johns hypothetical 10 vs 1000. We have TV programs lauding people who make thousands for pennies, Antiques Roadshow etc etc. The seller probably is a trader and should know better. Its how house clearers make their living.

Isn't "better informed people taking advantage of the ignorant" just survival of the fittest in a civilised society? The use of advertising to bamboozle people. I see Which say Lidl washing up liquid is better than Fairy but HALF the price. Can I take my Fairy back for a refund as this is unfair? Twice the price but a worse product!!!! outrage!

The tories for years touted market forces as the key to a successful economy, I never heard Thatcher add the caveat that "profits should be reasonable".

Ebay has a number of conditions of use that go above and beyond the normal consumer protection laws and contract law, yet we are hesitant to take advantage. I would read the ebay T&Cs in full.

We have already seen a member here pay to have their sensor checked rather than return it to the ebay trader under ebay SNAD terms costing them £60, unrefunded.

Having bought and paid for an item, to be refunded because the seller has remorse seems unfair to me.

I'm not an advocate of law of the jungle just law of the land and ebay T&Cs beyond that.

Nearly all online retailers have now changed their T&C to
state that a contract doesn't exist until they dispatch
the item. This follows the mistake Kodak made a few years
ago in ludicrously pricing cameras on their website and
having to honour all orders.

Hoover obviously made a mistake a few years ago giving free
airline tickets to the US with every vacuum cleaner sold
and people were buying vacs just for the tickets. They
couldn't get out of it and eventually had to sell the UK
business to Candy

BTW, I have on more than one occasion tipped a seller off that the lens they have is likely to be worth a bit more than the value they expect, particularly charidee sellers.

http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/seller-non-performance.html#detailed

Do tell, I think this is rather interesting...

At least from the German side, things really are clear-cut. If you have a contract to sell at a specific price, you have a contract. Breaking that contract will result in at the very least negative feedback and a complaint to Ebay, which again may well result in suspension.
Check it before you put it up....

Oh, and contract only coming to pass at time of despatch? Try telling that to your credit card company. It's not true. Consumer protection should also agree that at the time you place an order and confirm it, that order is placed and the onus is on the company to fulfil, E&O excepted. And even then I'd expect some kind of "good faith" measure.

Bret

This may be where UK and German law diverge a little.

Yep, which is the other reason I'd like to hear how it's implemented in the UK. I was under the impression that consumer protection was "big" in the UK, and now I see that it's actually quite protective of larger companies. Interesting... don't the distance selling regs cover this? I thought they were an implementation of an EU-wide decree?

Bret

To sell on ebay their own standard T&C's may well be null and void as they agree to ebay's overarching T&Cs.

Doug, you raise a number of interesting points I wish I had the time to comment on at greater length.

But since I am ridiculously busy I will limit this to my opinion that one of the key reasons we find ourselves in the serious socioeconomic predicament we are in today, is the extent to which spivery has become the norm.

I agree but this is a moral point (maybe), not a legal one, nor one of ebay T&Cs and expected ebay seller performance.

I'm luckily on a day off and should be hoovering, sorry vacuuming.

Spivery is merely a distilled form of capitalism...