Actually if you click to search completed items he relisted it for 1800 but it never sold.
PS3 sold for $0.99
- Thread starter LOBO2999
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 4K
Actually if you click to search completed items he relisted it for 1800 but it never sold.
I was just going to post the same about the shipping cost. It's not listed on the auction. He can make up whatever he wants.
Just to clarify a little, the 'false advertising' claims are to prevent businesses from doing a "bait and switch", primarily. Or to falsely lure cutomers in with items that do not exist or which are not sold at the price advertised.
While almost anything can be litigated, this particular case would have almost no chance of proceeding because it would be virtually impossible to prove intent to deceive the buyer.
It is the sale of an individual item, therefore listing the price 'deceptively' would serve no purpose. The seller is not trying to wrongfully profit by using the $0.99 PS3 as a tool.
Even if you were to pursue it in small claims court, the plaintiff would be hard pressed to prove that it was anything other than a mistake. There is no motivation in listing it this way on purpose.
Lastly, the seller is (probably) not a merchant in the legal sense. This is treated as a person to person transaction, regradless if it were on eBay or he put an ad in the local Penny Saver. eBay can do whatever they feel is appropriate and within their power, which is basically banning the seller. They can force no compensation or repair damages, that would fall for PayPal. PayPal can try to arbitrate the situation to a resolution, but failing that, would refer the participants to the courts.
The biggest hurdle for the buyer here is to prove the seller's intent (motive) to decieve (as with any false advertising claim), which in these circumstances would be nearly impossible. The court would see it as an honest mistake.
As far a store's advertisement having incorrect pricing, almost every ad I see has a disclaimer, referring to misprinted or accidental mispricing, even those that are the seller's fault. Same as with quantities available or items that are unavailable at the time of sale. A lot of stores will honor the wrong prices as a matter of customer good will, if it's no too egregious, but are not legally required to do so, unless intent and foresight can be proven. Of course, whatever the circumstances are, you have a right to start legal actions against them. It's just that very few of these cases are intentional cases of false advertising.
The law does look for an expectation of reasonability. If there is a 2007 model car that lists at $27,995 and is accidentally listed at $279.95 in an ad, you would have a tough time forcing the dealership into selling it at that price. Sure, you can try to sue, but I doubt that any court would award you the car at that price. They would find that it is unreasonable to expect such a deal.
However, if the same car was listed at the $27995 price, but they started adding in things like wheels or seats, than that would be an obvious case of false advertising. It is reasonable to assume that a new car would include these items. As ridiculous as the courts are becoming, there is still some sanity in the legal system. It all comes down to being reasonable.
There is no reason to deceptively list a PS3 at $0.99, unlike the sales for 3 Playstations referenced above. That buyer could make an argument that he was deceived and the motive is easy to see. Even then, the way the ad was worded, I doubt the buyer could get out of the deal. The seller would have legal recourse. eBay and PayPal may see the problem and be sympathetic to the buyer, but the seller would most likely prevail, as he could prove it was what he offered and was willing to deliver and suffered loss by not being able to sell it to someone else. It may be sleazy, but it is perfectly legal.
While almost anything can be litigated, this particular case would have almost no chance of proceeding because it would be virtually impossible to prove intent to deceive the buyer.
It is the sale of an individual item, therefore listing the price 'deceptively' would serve no purpose. The seller is not trying to wrongfully profit by using the $0.99 PS3 as a tool.
Even if you were to pursue it in small claims court, the plaintiff would be hard pressed to prove that it was anything other than a mistake. There is no motivation in listing it this way on purpose.
Lastly, the seller is (probably) not a merchant in the legal sense. This is treated as a person to person transaction, regradless if it were on eBay or he put an ad in the local Penny Saver. eBay can do whatever they feel is appropriate and within their power, which is basically banning the seller. They can force no compensation or repair damages, that would fall for PayPal. PayPal can try to arbitrate the situation to a resolution, but failing that, would refer the participants to the courts.
The biggest hurdle for the buyer here is to prove the seller's intent (motive) to decieve (as with any false advertising claim), which in these circumstances would be nearly impossible. The court would see it as an honest mistake.
As far a store's advertisement having incorrect pricing, almost every ad I see has a disclaimer, referring to misprinted or accidental mispricing, even those that are the seller's fault. Same as with quantities available or items that are unavailable at the time of sale. A lot of stores will honor the wrong prices as a matter of customer good will, if it's no too egregious, but are not legally required to do so, unless intent and foresight can be proven. Of course, whatever the circumstances are, you have a right to start legal actions against them. It's just that very few of these cases are intentional cases of false advertising.
The law does look for an expectation of reasonability. If there is a 2007 model car that lists at $27,995 and is accidentally listed at $279.95 in an ad, you would have a tough time forcing the dealership into selling it at that price. Sure, you can try to sue, but I doubt that any court would award you the car at that price. They would find that it is unreasonable to expect such a deal.
However, if the same car was listed at the $27995 price, but they started adding in things like wheels or seats, than that would be an obvious case of false advertising. It is reasonable to assume that a new car would include these items. As ridiculous as the courts are becoming, there is still some sanity in the legal system. It all comes down to being reasonable.
There is no reason to deceptively list a PS3 at $0.99, unlike the sales for 3 Playstations referenced above. That buyer could make an argument that he was deceived and the motive is easy to see. Even then, the way the ad was worded, I doubt the buyer could get out of the deal. The seller would have legal recourse. eBay and PayPal may see the problem and be sympathetic to the buyer, but the seller would most likely prevail, as he could prove it was what he offered and was willing to deliver and suffered loss by not being able to sell it to someone else. It may be sleazy, but it is perfectly legal.
for me I stated that false advertising is against the law, and thank you for backing that up. Also I did say that it was to protect people from getting the old bait and switch. Also if we advertise a sub (at subway) at 4.49 and it rings up at 4.59 are you telling me there is nothing illegal about this? again here in Ohio they are very strict about that....also everyone here agreess this kid messsed up and there is no chance he will get anything.
not necessarily... small claims court... its under $1500 and you aren't allowed to have lawyers. Its just you and the defendant in this cast buyer and seller. ebay won't get involved. Now if the defendant doesn't show then I believe they automatically lose. If you file suit in your county then the defendant is across the country they would have to pay airfare so he can appear in court...
IF the seller would have put a reserve price then thats a different story... he could then get out of delivering the item because the price did not meet the minimum price specified.
Either the seller is a complete idiot since it's not his first time selling on ebay, or he was too excited in thinking about how much money he will make and forgot to specify a reserve price.
It was not a problem with a reserve price. He accidentally sent the auction up as "Buy It Now" of $0.99 instead of with a starting price of $0.99. And while setting a reserve price is sometimes a good idea, it is hardly necessary for a PS3 at this time.
Personally I hate auctions with reserves, and generally won't bid in them. If there is a minimum you will accept, start the auction from there. If you want a specific amount, do a "Buy It Now". I'm not interested in trying to find out the secret amount you are willing to sell for.
gotcha! thanks I am not sure how court cases work, there are way too many rules, everyone is sue happy anymore-plus I try to stay far away from court!
I hear you on that... I hate bidding on those too.. its usually someone doing a price check on something.
Similar threads
