I think I'm done eBay

[belindabargainhunter]

So I received an item today a pair of shoes that was ment to be new in the box however it did say worn once which I took for trying on inside, otherwise how is it new.
I received it in the mail mud at least I hope it mud on the soles, soles worn down and inside of the shoes u can see foot prints.
I emailed the seller only to get all captain responses telling me it said worn once. I explained yes but then how are they new in the box.
Anyways after just rude I don't give two hoots answers and I decided stuff it my money's gone its not worth the return but this seller is getting a negative. Something I have only done once maybe twice.
Well what do I learn power sellers can't receive neg for 7 days after purchase. What the what makes a power seller any different to other sellers. So because this person is a power seller they can be rude, send clearly not as described items. Not happy eBay

[*crikey*mate*]

plus your typewriter seems to have dyslexia LOL

or someone moved all the keys whilst you were sleeping...

Not long till you're home now, hey PJ?

[jameshouseofstyle]

There is also the public interest defence, but I'll let crikey give you both barrels on that one.

Ha, ha, ha, ha......gigling out loud, but I tell ya dave and crikey, I'm mighty glad I'm not standing in front of you! I'm still laughing, even just trying to visualise it!

But, all joke aside, legal aspect and consequences are exactly as related to me by people whose job is to advise correctly, that is why I took the trouble to find out, as, like you I din't know first thing about it.

That was only in regards to defamation cases - as Ebay doesn't accept defamation forms any longer we though we better find out how law regards it.

But of course, both of you can pick up the phone and find out for yourselves, just as easily.

PS. Ground to air missile would have been more useful due to the distance.

[*crikey*mate*]

are these the same advisors who tell you that it is perfectly acceptable to breach a legally binding contract?

[davewil1964]

like you I din't know first thing about it.

I know quite a bit about it, but crikey is better versed than I.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@jameshouseofstyle wrote:

To cover myself, I asked a law firm (recently I bought something and was tempted to leave a neg) - and the trouble with that is that anything derogatory is wieved as defaming someone publicly, not only that they get the court order to remove it , they get punitive damages and all court costs awarded as well - payable by the buyer!

They told me that court would take an average earnings per day of the seller, and award damages for each day that goes by with the neg present accordingly - and my seller was HUGE, definitely didn't want to take a chance! Not worth the worry,  especially about something stupid like a neg that not many buyers would pay any mind to anyway.

---

lets have a little look at Defamation, shall we?

Yes, anyone can sue, I suppose, but will they win?

Defences available:

1) Justification (truth)

Under the uniform laws, the defendant will not be liable if he/she can establish that the imputations contained in the matter are substantially true.

2) At common law the defence of Fair comment/honest opinion is available where the defendant can establish that the defamatory imputation/s represented an honest opinion on a matter of public interest.

3) Contextual truth may also apply.

ADDITIONALLY - and here's the clincher, the real belly laugh if you like, neither Examplary OR PUNITIVE Damages can be awarded for Defamation.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@jameshouseofstyle wrote:

There is also the public interest defence, but I'll let crikey give you both barrels on that one.

Ha, ha, ha, ha......gigling out loud, but I tell ya dave and crikey, I'm mighty glad I'm not standing in front of you! I'm still laughing, even just trying to visualise it!

But, all joke aside, legal aspect and consequences are exactly as related to me by people whose job is to advise correctly, that is why I took the trouble to find out, as, like you I din't know first thing about it.

That was only in regards to defamation cases - as Ebay doesn't accept defamation forms any longer we though we better find out how law regards it.

But of course, both of you can pick up the phone and find out for yourselves, just as easily.

PS. Ground to air missile would have been more useful due to the distance.

---

Would it be rude of me to make the suggestion that next time you "pick up the phone" for some legal advice, that you contact someone who actually knows the law?

[jameshouseofstyle]

 crikey,

As I was there in person, phone info doesn't come into it this time.

I didn't quite grasp it the first time so I got them to repeat it and spell it out so there was absolutely no ambuguity or misunderstanding.

But if you think they are not correct - is that everything or in part?

1. Can one take people to court for defamatory statements  that may potentially damage their reputation and business?

2.If they win, can they not claim damages?

3. If they win are they not awarded all the costs agains the other party?

As I said, the f/back I was going to leave my seller would have been: rude and arrogant, or something along those lines, couldn't really say anything about the item as that was perfect.

I was advised to think about it - as defamation cases are relatively easy to win!

And I wasn't going to take the chance of any protracted court hearings and potential further hefty damages. It just didn't matter to me enough to go to all the trouble.

Cheers,

[*crikey*mate*]

You're the Vice President of fairy land, aren't you?

Clearly you have purchased your legal advice from eBay, open up a SNAD NOW! You really are entitled to a refund.

You need to consult with someone who actually knows the law, either that or stop making it up as you go along and committing to print the first little explosion that goes off in your head.

PLEASE, stop publishing wrong information!

[jameshouseofstyle]

crikey,

dunno what is wrong... I asked you about one thing - you  talk about something else!

Not only that, but you suggesting for me to get a refund shows that you didn't read a word of my post, where I said TWICE that the item I bought was PERFECT.

And your plea not to publish wrong information is pointless, I can only say what I have found out.

And - like I asked you above - if you think that is all wrong you must then know what is a right information - so feel free to outline it in detail.

In my case it's not particularly relevant,  as I hardly ever shop on Ebay, let alone have to even think about leaving negs - but it may help other people.

[*crikey*mate*]

the refund was for the legal advice you claim to have received..... it's wrong.

I've already outlined why your advice and what you wrote is wrong.

My issue is with your incorrect legal facts that you continue to publish here on eBay.

Publishing the wrong facts will NEVER help other people.

---

@jameshouseofstyle wrote:

crikey,

dunno what is wrong... I asked you about one thing - you  talk about something else!

Not only that, but you suggesting for me to get a refund shows that you didn't read a word of my post, where I said TWICE that the item I bought was PERFECT.

And your plea not to publish wrong information is pointless, I can only say what I have found out.

And - like I asked you above - if you think that is all wrong you must then know what is a right information - so feel free to outline it in detail.

In my case it's not particularly relevant,  as I hardly ever shop on Ebay, let alone have to even think about leaving negs - but it may help other people.

---