ebay purchase not in stock: loss of bargain?

[Shox Dr]

Where do you stand on making a purchase based on the price and delivery time, to then be told not in stock and they will be unable to supply within agreed time scale.

If this was a shop, and you had made the same purchase you could sue for "loss of bargain" However it seems to be the way on ebay that the seller offers a refund, or you wait.

 

[MattF]

If this was a shop, and you had made the same purchase you could sue for "loss of bargain" However it seems to be the way on ebay that the seller offers a refund, or you wait.

The choices they've given you are fair. Sue for loss of bargain? A new one on me, and personally, I'd class that as an arsey approach by anyone over what is likely a simple stock error. Companies frequently have stock discrepancies. How many times have you gone to a trade counter, for example, and their supposed and actual stock amounts differ? If it never happened, no company would waste time with a yearly stock check.

 

[rtbcomp]

Did they say it was in stock on Ebay? There is a "No. Available" box on some listings.

Was it "buy it now" or auction?

Presumably it was a business seller? If so distance selling regs may apply, there's a link in the links section.

 

[Shox Dr]

Matt: It's got FA to do with been arsey.

I suggest you read up on the legal term "loss of bargain". to save me from typing it out.


RTB. Yes in stock with confirmed delivery dates. BIN

 

[hotrodder]

I don't have a clue but i would have thought it's no different to pricing errors that are discovered when you try and pay- 'invitation to treat' in legalise? Never heard of 'loss of bargin' before so might be talking nonsense

ETA would loss of bargin not be about warrenty in that your bargin dies and they try to refund what you payed not replace or refund what it was worth?

 

[MattF]

Matt: It's got FA to do with been arsey.

Probably not, but it's my personal opinion. If some company had implicitly confirmed an order as all parts being stocked/available and then said something wasn't, it's a bugg*r, granted, but it's still one of those things. I always look at things from the perspective of how one would feel if the role was reversed. Mistakes and errors happen, and if I made a minor cock-up, I'd like to think that others would show the same courtesy as I extend to others. That might just be my take on things, however.

If it's a deliberate attempt by someone to mislead, then that's a different thing altogether, but I still think the choices they gave you seem fair.

 

[Shox Dr]

I have no axe to grind with the seller. I was wondering if it applied to ebay.

And I sorry to be pedantic Matt but that was not the question I asked, I am not interested in anyone's opinion just the facts.

 

[MattF]

And I sorry to be pedantic Matt but that was not the question I asked, I am not interested in anyone's opinion just the facts.

Okey dokey then. Going along the fact route, the likelihood is that you may likely end up going to small claims court or similar and risking getting nowhere if you don't accept their offer of a refund or item once it's in stock. Check the "loss of bargain" info, (I just briefly did, as you suggested), and you'll likely find you're entering a minefield pursuing them for anything further than what they've already offered you.

 

[the repair man]

In my humble, but largely factual opinion, it is normally Ebay that are the turds, not the sellers. But in this instance it sounds like they've tried to cover themselves with a few extra sales. Don't worry though, ebay are infamous for their world leading customer support and problem resolution..acchacgu, sorry just choked

 

[hotrodder]

Did they take your money and then discover the lack of stock some time later on or did it happen after you'd agreed everything but when you tried to pay? I don't know but i would have thought if it happened the first way there may be a broken contract while the second way happened before a contract existed- like invitation to treat. Not quite the same thing but remember the mispriced tellies (properly stupidly low ££ like a zero missing before the decimal point or something) on the internet a few years back? IIRC people were making a fuss when they were refunded due to the mistake thinking the store legally had to sell them at that price

 

[scott0031]

Forgive me if i am wrong and maybe ebay rules have changed. I was on the understanding any items listed for sale must be available to sell and in stock. Any Items that are listed and not being in stock ready to ship is a breach of ebay policy.


Kind regards,


Scott

 

[bigegg]

There was a sort-of famous (certainly on the Uk ebay usenet group - before forums became popular, say around 2004) case of someone who won an ebay *auction* and the seller refused to sell at the end price.
The "buyer" sued for loss of bargain - and won, from the seller, the difference between the end price, and an equivalent item from elsewhere.
It was quite widely publicised at the time - in one of the tabloid money columns.

Going back to the OP's original question - I think that, potentially, if you made an order, and paid, and the money was accepted (so a contract was formed) with delivery time "of the essence" - ie, you said you needed the item by a specific time. - then *potentially* you could have a claim for any losses incurred if the item was not delivered on time.
You would, however, be expected to attempt to mitigate the loss - by getting the item from elsewhere, for instance - and you could only claim for the cheapest option.

*HOWEVER* - I've not (yet) finished my legal training, and contract law is a specialist field - and it's a minefield. IANAL!

 

[cumbriasteve]

It is fairly common for the big sellers on ebay to list more stock than they actually have to hand, hoping if an item sells well they can restock before they run out.

Another trick is they up the price from say £20 for a spanner to £200 when they run out and the new stock is on it's way, knowing any potential buyers will not be willing to pay the £200 but it keeps the listing active and their position at the top of the searches instead of having to relist and start again below the competitiors, when the new stock arrives drop the price back to £20.

Both are against ebay selling policy and ebay know it is rife but these are the big sellers that ebay get their money from so they ignore the rule breaking.

Bigegg's post is about spot on, there has been a very rare occasion and it is rare, where a buyer has went to court and managed to claim 'something', there has also been many others tried and got nowhere, usually at a cost to themselves.

From what I have seen in the past, the success of a legal claim usually revolves around proof that the sellers actions were deliberate and cost you a significant financial loss by not supplying the article, as far as I can remember I have never seen a 'win' over the loss of a bargain, even though that may exist.

 

[cecotto479]

It is confusingly described as "loss of bargain". A "bargain" in legal terms is just an agreed contract - a deal, not the "great deal" that the word means in common use.

So, the "loss of bargain" is simply just the damages you'd be entitled to for breach of contract.

If you bought something for £50 and when they didn't supply in a reasonable time, you had to pay £250 - having tried as much as reasonable to find it cheaper - your damages or loss of bargain would be £200 - the difference between what you expected to pay and did.

Unless it is expressly stated though and it has been eluded to earlier, time is not of the essence in the performance of a contract. Provided they supply in a reasonable time frame, you have no grounds repudiate and seek damages.

If they say they can't supply at all at that price, then you are, in theory at least, entitled to damages which would be the difference in what you had to pay and what you were to pay. You'd need to establish what you did in order to minimise your losses - where did you look?; how many quotes did you get; did you buy the cheapest - all that sort of stuff.

Your only other issue, is if the original price was just so low as to be plainly and obviously wrong to a reasonable man, you may have difficulty enforcing the contract.

 

[Burdekin]

I had a guy renege on a deal for a lovely BMW 3.0CS off of ebay. I was annoyed, reported to ebay which was a waste of my time and gave him negative feedback.

I don't know about legally but morally do you really want to be taking someone to court for an incorrect listing on ebay?

 

[Shox Dr]

Interesting replies.

Interesting in that a lot ASS-U-ME'd that I was looking to use this law.

Also interesting that some of you think that if you buy off ebay you should expect to be ripped off. And then do nothing about it.

I merely asked as having knowledge of this law I was interested as to if it had been used.

So I'll leave it there.

 

[MattF]

Also interesting that some of you think that if you buy off ebay you should expect to be ripped off. And then do nothing about it.

Interesting that you ASS-U-ME'd everyones responses are only in relation to Ebay sellers. You mentioned Ebay. Personally, the suppliers whereabouts or initial contact point would be irrelevant. The general approach would be the same regardless.

Besides, what you describe isn't being ripped off. Someone taking money from you and never supplying you with the goods, else supplying you with something different to that which you purchased would be being ripped off, if it wasn't merely an error or oversight, that is. What you describe can happen for any number of legitimate reasons.

Again, regardless of whom, where or when, I'd still class it as a p*ssy customer attitude if an oversight or mere stock discrepancy led to the "sue them" attitude, unless the resulting circumstances are truly dire. The sue culture ought to have stayed in the country where it originated, IMHO.

 

[Shox Dr]

Again I suggest you read up on the law it has little to do with what I believe, you believe it to mean.

 

[the snooper]

personally I would report the item to ebay if the seller is listing stock they don't have, they would soon put a strike against you if you failed to pay.

 

[MattF]

Again I suggest you read up on the law it has little to do with what I believe, you believe it to mean.

I have looked at a definition of it, but the hypothetical? example you gave doesn't even come close to the supposed meaning of the loss of bargain thing, (or at least my interpretation of it):

loss of bargain n. the inability to complete a sale or other business deal, caused by another's breach of contract, intentional interference with one's business, negligence, or some other wrongdoing. The amount of monetary damages resulting from this loss can be determined in a lawsuit.

The above seems more in keeping with being royally ripped off, or someone totally refusing to honour a deal, not just someone being out of stock and offering a belated supply date or refund, as in your example.