70's Jazz Bass

[discreet]

[quote name='Maverick' post='751681' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:54 AM']DSRs dont apply to private sellers selling by BINs though right?[/quote]

That's right. Private sellers aren't obliged to show a returns policy in their listings.
DSRs only apply to 'sellers acting in the course of a business'.

Edited February 20, 2010 by discreet

[noelk27]

[quote name='Maverick' post='751662' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:27 AM']Hmm, that's interesting - legally speaking I don't think there's any great distinction really (in the case of a private seller), but I suppose eBay can make that their policy if they wish.[/quote]

"The Law" makes significant distinction between a private individual, not acting by way of trade or profession, and a trader or body corporate across the spectrum of activities those falling into said categories may undertake, not least as a seller or retailer. Even within the context of eBay a distinction is made under the standard terms and conditions, between private and business sellers - there is an initial burden on the eBay member to declare their status, although eBay reserves the right to categorise any member as a business seller based on measurable criteria such as volume of monthly sales, repetition of product listings, and so on. Certainly, there are commercial advantages to business registration, not least billing, payment, and feeing criteria.

As correctly summarised, measures such as the Distance Selling Regulations and statutes dealing with the sale of goods generally apply to sales by way of trade or profession, where the statutory regime imposes a set of rights and responsibilities on the parties dealing, so as to exclude unfair contract terms, and practices. The position of a private individual is quite distinct, where the weight of statutory materials cannot be brought to bear on the seller, but where the body of common law and practice is of import. The common law is where the buyer of this item can seek refuge.

Outwith eBay, and after examining the item description to determine whether the stated serial number is an essential term of the contract, or other, it could be argued that the buyer has a right of rejection prior to proffering of payment. Taking the eBay construct, however, it is most probably necessary that the buyer does indeed conclude the transaction, thereafter availing himself of the procedures and protections offered through that marketplace. But this is the point at which commentators appear to be postulated as to the relative state of knowledge, of both seller and buyer, whether the description is sufficiently ambiguous as to imply authenticity of an identification plate only, and so on, and so on. To be brutally frank, I think those without sufficient knowledge of the operation of the law of contract are muddying the waters significantly. The seller has stated a serial number. The serial number - and it really does not matter if directly or by implication - becomes a significant factor in determining the identity of the good, and given the sparsity of other operable description, certainly arguably an essential. With the VIN system there are other statutory factors to be taken into consideration, but the same principle presides, that the identification, or serial, number can be related to a database, or record, for the purposes of identification, or authentication. If, on referring to the relevant database or record, the serial number were found not to relate to the specific item, then the seller would be in beach, with the consequent results to the enforceability of the sale.

Should the buyer have conducted due diligence, prior to placing an auction bid or at some time prior to conclusion of the auction? Possibly, given that the information for conducting said diligence had been disclosed. Is this factor likely to influence the situation, rejection of the goods? Unlikely.

Edited February 20, 2010 by noelk27

[Maverick]

[quote name='noelk27' post='751710' date='Feb 20 2010, 12:34 PM']"The Law" makes significant distinction between a private individual, not acting by way of trade or profession, and a trader or body corporate across the spectrum of activities those falling into said categories may undertake, not least as a seller or retailer. Even within the context of eBay a distinction is made under the standard terms and conditions, between private and business sellers - there is an initial burden on the eBay member to declare their status, although eBay reserves the right to categorise any member as a business seller based on measurable criteria such as volume of monthly sales, repetition of product listings, and so on. Certainly, there are commercial advantages to business registration, not least billing, payment, and feeing criteria.

As correctly summarised, measures such as the Distance Selling Regulations and statutes dealing with the sale of goods generally apply to sales by way of trade or profession, where the statutory regime imposes a set of rights and responsibilities on the parties dealing, so as to exclude unfair contract terms, and practices. The position of a private individual is quite distinct, where the weight of statutory materials cannot be brought to bear on the seller, but where the body of common law and practice is of import. The common law is where the buyer of this item can seek refuge.[/quote]

Ok, you seemed to have missed my point, which was basically DSR no apply-ee to private individual sellers, and that legally, the distinction between auction/BINs doesn'tmake any difference in the case of private sellers - they still don't apply either way (I misread discreet's post as meaning ebay policy means DSRs apply to all BIN sales, which the law wouldn't require).

[quote]Outwith eBay, and after examining the item description to determine whether the stated serial number is an essential term of the contract, or other, it could be argued that the buyer has a right of rejection prior to proffering of payment. Taking the eBay construct, however, it is most probably necessary that the buyer does indeed conclude the transaction, thereafter availing himself of the procedures and protections offered through that marketplace. But this is the point at which commentators appear to be postulated as to the relative state of knowledge, of both seller and buyer, whether the description is sufficiently ambiguous as to imply authenticity of an identification plate only, and so on, and so on. To be brutally frank, I think those without sufficient knowledge of the operation of the law of contract are muddying the waters significantly. The seller has stated a serial number. The serial number - and it really does not matter if directly or by implication - becomes a significant factor in determining the identity of the good, and given the sparsity of other operable description, certainly arguably an essential. With the VIN system there are other statutory factors to be taken into consideration, but the same principle presides, that the identification, or serial, number can be related to a database, or record, for the purposes of identification, or authentication. If, on referring to the relevant database or record, the serial number were found not to relate to the specific item, then the seller would be in beach, with the consequent results to the enforceability of the sale.

Should the buyer have conducted due diligence, prior to placing an auction bid or at some time prior to conclusion of the auction? Possibly, given that the information for conducting said diligence had been disclosed. Is this factor likely to influence the situation, rejection of the goods? Unlikely.[/quote]


Given what the ad states, I think the seller has expressly excluded the precise identification of the bass, beyond "Fender Jazz Bass", from being an actual term of the contract. The terms of the offer are literally, I think, "Fender Jazz Bass with 307018 printed on the neckplate" - which is the offer the buyer accepts by bidding.

The serial number therefore is actually a representation as to the identity of the bass. If it's a false representation then the contract is certainly rescindable, and the buyer can get his money back.

But if the buyer is aware that the representation is false, he loses the right to rescind, as the representation can no longer be held to have induced the contract. If he's aware that it may be false, he might still lose the right to rescind for this reason - it probably comes down to the degree of notice that he had.

That's my reading of the situation in terms of pure contract theory, there may be portions of commercial or consumer protection law or even ebay policy that apply but I couldn't tell you what they are. I do know that the DSR and the implied terms from the Sale of Goods Act don't apply, as it's a private seller.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Maverick

[alanbass1]

Lots of 'lawyer speak' here. Buit the fact of the matter is that anyone with a modicum of sense would have fugured this not an original early 70's jazz bass. I don't understand what the issue is, whoever bid and won the auction shoud go through with the purchaee. if not, and they should be prepared to receive get bad feedback. so be it. I have no sympathy as it is as clear as night and day that the bass has a nuber of non original parts.

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='alanbass1' post='752345' date='Feb 20 2010, 11:31 PM']if not, and they should be prepared to receive get bad feedback. so be it.[/quote]

Whether you think this is wrong or right is another debate/matter but the seller CAN'T leave the buyer negative feedback even if they wanted to!

I personally think that if someone had lived close enough to go and verify what exactly this is, then it would have been fine for them to decide whether to bid or not. However, for someone to bid so high on something that is in doubt (cheap mind if it is what it 'could' be) shows recklessness or greed and they now have to make that decision as to what they do. I have to say that the seller gave all the warning signs in the listing that this probably isn't a pukka late 70's Jazz so I'm not sure that you can lay blame at their door, the seller is certainly guilty of being economical with the truth, enough to leave it ambiguous to draw in the unwary... though if anyone had read this thread in the lead up the end of the listing they'd hardly have been unaware of the potential for a big fat FAIL!

[alanbass1]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='752480' date='Feb 21 2010, 08:02 AM']Whether you think this is wrong or right is another debate/matter but the seller CAN'T leave the buyer negative feedback even if they wanted to!

I personally think that if someone had lived close enough to go and verify what exactly this is, then it would have been fine for them to decide whether to bid or not. However, for someone to bid so high on something that is in doubt (cheap mind if it is what it 'could' be) shows recklessness or greed and they now have to make that decision as to what they do. I have to say that the seller gave all the warning signs in the listing that this probably isn't a pukka late 70's Jazz so I'm not sure that you can lay blame at their door, the seller is certainly guilty of being economical with the truth, enough to leave it ambiguous to draw in the unwary... though if anyone had read this thread in the lead up the end of the listing they'd hardly have been unaware of the potential for a big fat FAIL! [/quote]

I agree. That's why I steered well clear of this auction myself.

[karlfer]

When he failed to reply to me, I lost interest very rapidly.

[wateroftyne]

Cool... Caveat emptor, but not everyone is a villain.

[Bassassin]

If he wants to part it out I'll give him £25 for the neck, no sweat.

J.

[Sibob]

Why would he "part out the rest of the bass", just buy a bog standard neck plate lol
Tsk...some music shops!

Si

[warwickhunt]

Has it been established if the neck was genuine late 70's B&B?

[jezzaboy]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='755615' date='Feb 23 2010, 10:49 PM']If he wants to part it out I'll give him £25 for the neck, no sweat.

J.[/quote]


BA your all heart.

Jez

[karlfer]

Faith in human nature restored.

[WalMan]

[quote name='karlfer' post='757328' date='Feb 25 2010, 05:27 PM']Faith in human nature restored.[/quote]
or did he just think he'd been sussed and get cold feet? I've become such a cynic in my old age

[Gunsfreddy2003]

Would have to agree with you there WalMan.



[quote name='WalMan' post='759566' date='Feb 28 2010, 03:55 AM']or did he just think he'd been sussed and get cold feet? I've become such a cynic in my old age[/quote]

[warwickhunt]

[quote name='WalMan' post='759566' date='Feb 28 2010, 03:55 AM']or did he just think he'd been sussed and get cold feet? I've become such a cynic in my old age[/quote]


[quote name='Gunsfreddy2003' post='759576' date='Feb 28 2010, 07:22 AM']Would have to agree with you there WalMan.[/quote]

I have to confess that's my take on it to!

[Ou7shined]

Likewise.

[tauzero]

[quote name='warwickhunt' post='751322' date='Feb 19 2010, 08:04 PM']There was a documented case on this forum during the latter part of last year with a dispute over a basses authenticity; eBay found in the buyer's favour (a registered BCer) and refunded him the money... he also kept the bass with no recriminations from eBay or PayPal![/quote]
Can't remember if I said at the time that I suspect that it's to do with the actual transaction mechanisms of Paypal. I have no actual evidence or legal knowledge to back this up, but I suspect that what happens is that Paypal buys the item from the seller and then sells it to you, sticking in its markup on the way. This would satisfactorily answer the case where the buyer finished up with both the refund and the dodgy bass - Paylap sent him back his money, don't want the hassle of taking back and storing a dodgy bass so don't bother, but they also get their money back from the seller on the basis of wrongly described goods which is somewhere buried deep in their T&Cs.