Australia Post Legal Question

[*crikey*mate*]

Common Law provides us with a postal rule in Adams v Lindsell which says that once a letter of acceptance is posted that it is deemed accepted and not reliant on the acceptance being communicated to the offerror. (sic) (usually, acceptance must be communicated).

That being, it stands to reason that ownership of the letter must pass from the sender to the receiver at the point of postage.

Two questions arise from this;

1) Once posted (either lodged over counter or placed in a designated mail box), the sender should not be able to retrieve the letter/package, as they no longer own it.

What is the actual ruling on this? Can a sender retrieve a postal item after mailing it?

2) In eBayland, The buyer usually/technically pays for the postage, and the seller is merely the agent charged with performing the act. However, despite the buyer paying for the service to have an item that legally belongs to them delivered, why is it that Australia Post will not allow the buyer to make enquiries about that parcel if, for example, it gets lost in the post?

It is my understanding, that the seller must lodge any complaint/claim (which does make sense as they would have the paperwork), but then the buyer is reliant solely on communication from the seller.

So, why is it that the legal owner of the postal item, who paid for the delivery service is prevented from making enquiries or instigating investigations as to its whereabouts?

[thecatspjs]

The sale of goods act does not apply to personal purchases though does it ??

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

The sale of goods act does not apply to personal purchases though does it ??

---

The Sale of Goods Act applies to all contracts for the sale of goods, however, s.14 is more limited in its scope in that it only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business. Also where the goods are sold in the course of a business the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act are reinforced with the protection offered by the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which prohibits their exclusion.

[thecatspjs]

Sorry, I am mistaken.

[*crikey*mate*]

Cats, please don't be sorry. You're making me think! We're both just nutting through stuff, and I'm learning heaps! You're making me work harder than they make me at school! It's good!

[thecatspjs]

I like saying sorry when I get things wrong or mixed up.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@thecatspjs wrote:

But isn't this discussion in the context of ebay ??

I am assuming a seller has specified payment terms in their listing.

---

it would apply anywhere? Trading rules and auction rules/laws are the same?

I'm lost, aren't we working out when ownership takes place?

Do all sellers specify payment terms though? I mean apart from method of payment?

I'm thinking if they don't pay when the seller specifies, then the seller has to get the court to rule non performance of the contract. But that doesn't entitle the seller to also non perform.

[thecatspjs]

Internet auction rules - whilst signifying a type of auction - are still not "standard" auctions.  IMO when you sign up to ebay you commit to sell and buy according to a whole lot of additional terms and condtiions that apply to trading in the absence of alternate conditions being prescribed in a listing (and if they are not in conflict with Australian legislation). This includes the resolution process such as cancellation of sales and non-payment.

.

[*crikey*mate*]

I think that these are processes eBay puts in place to try and make sure their platform is user friendly as most people wouldn't bother going through court, so anarchy would reign if they didn';t have some internal resolution system. Their policies/terms and conditions etc are designed to keep people happy so they will continue to frequent the site and use the service.

Nobody's policies etc can deny your ultimate legal rights though.

Online auctions are treated the same, they've just had to define when and how events such as offer and acceptance etc take place, same things for communication through email etc too now that a lot of negotiations are done via email rather than post.

[thecatspjs]

Whilst the harmonisation of consumer policy and legislation on a national basis has been a great step forward IMO, I don't think it is as clear cut as your comments imply, when dealing with ebay or other internet purchases that have another tier of "policy intent" and attached terms and conditions that come into play.

My observation is that legislation has not kept up with internet trading in the slightest and out-dated Acts are being retro-fit via weak amendments or applied purely by case precedents, rather than sound policy intent - and that is not good law making IMO.

[*crikey*mate*]

The law is built on Case Law. The Doctrine of Precedent and the Rule of Law are the foundations of our Legal System. Legislation is derived from the Common Law.