on 25-09-2013 06:08 PM
I noticed on another recent thread (on another topic) that board posters were indicating that goods purchased through eBay auctions were not covered by the same consumer guarantees as buy-it-now goods.
I just wanted to note that according to fair trading information on government websites, this appears not to be the case and that buyers of Australian businesses goods that are purchased through the eBay auction process, are covered by the same consumer guarantees as buy-it-now goods.
Some fair trading website facts that are easily located via google below, (my highlighting)
"Consumer guarantees do not cover goods bought at auction, where the auctioneer acts as an agent for the owner of the goods."
"eBay sales are not considered to be an auction as eBay does not act as an agent on behalf of the seller. Therefore, eBay sales are covered by the consumer guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law"
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 25-09-2013 06:56 PM
I thought the response posted by coast_golf in another, quite recent thread explained very well that an eBay listing constitues a contract no matter if the seller is acting as a business or privately, that the contract includes the description, and that there are (lawful) remedies available if the goods don't meet that description (since there is more than one body that regulates consumer rights / protections / guarantees, and different things are handled by different bodies).
That's the way I read it, anyway.
25-09-2013 07:58 PM - edited 25-09-2013 07:59 PM
@this-way-up wrote:In 2010, sorry I think it was Gazzetted or whatever they call it in 2011...The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 replaced all those such Acts...
It is also know as The Australian Consumer Law.
However, I still think you will find that the Sale of Goods Act is a UK Act...Not Australian ! 🙂
From 2012
Key points to remember about the Australian Consumer Law's consumer guarantees
on 25-09-2013 08:19 PM
The ACL consolidated a number of different statutory instruments including the Trade Practices Act. It was introduced primarily to ensure that, as far as possible, consumer rights and obligations in B2B and B2C transactions were consistent Australia wide.
Each state retains a Sales of Goods Act (or similar). In QLD this can be found at - https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/S/SaleGoodA1896.pdf
Consumer law simply cannot be consolidated into 1 piece of legislation, it would literally be tens of thousands of pages long. The law is complex, and depending on the nature of their business, merchants may have to refer to upwards of a dozen pieces of legislation to ensure that they are compliant with the law. There are Commonwealth, State and Local laws that all must be complied with, the ACL is certainly not a one stop shop and was never intended to be, it was simply a consolidation and simplification of (in the main) existing legislation.
Private sales are naturally less complex but statutory (and common law) protections do still apply obviously. The SoGA's of various states are the primary instruments for C2C transactions.
Very few people like complex legal arguments so I won't get into specifics but suffice to say that IN QLD at least, eBay buyers are protected by the SoGA.
- Sales at auction ARE covered (s59)
- Contracts between private parties are enforceable and remedies may be sought for non performance (ss 29, 50-55)
Nothing in the ACL exempts a private seller from compliance with the provisions of the SoGA. Examining a Commonwealth Act and relying on it to the exclusion to all else is folly. Let's look at criminal offences for example, murder is not an offence under the Crimes Act (Cth) but it most certainly is in every state in Australia.
Just touching on the legal definition of "may not", regardless of any perceived ambiguity I can assure you that the definition relied upon by a court is "must not under any circumstances". Let's suppose I say to you, "you may not drive my car", there can be no doubt that I have prohibited you from performing that action. In a different context may not can also be something less than committal ("I may not be able to attend football training tonight") but as one of the primary purposes of contract law is to remove any ambiguity as far as possible, this situation rarely, if ever arises.
on 25-09-2013 08:23 PM
Consumer guarantees
Consumer guarantees —a guide for consumers
Goods bought at auction
Only the consumer guarantees relating to title, undisturbed possession and undisclosed
securities and charges apply to goods purchased at a traditional auction conducted by an
agent of the person selling the goods.
If you sell goods through an online auction website you may be required to abide by the
consumer guarantees, as these websites do not generally act as an agent for the person
selling the goods. (1)
If you take up an option to buy at an online auction site at a fi xed price, you are covered
by the same consumer guarantees that apply to non-auction sales.
The Australian Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees for Goods
The Australian Consumer LawConsumer Guarantees for Goods(includes refunds, replacement and repairs)
Which goods ARE NOT covered
goods bought at auctions where the auctioneer acts as agent for the owner
(1) "f you sell goods through an online auction website you may be required to abide by the
consumer guarantees, as these websites do not generally act as an agent for the person
selling the goods."
on 25-09-2013 08:32 PM
Office of Fair Trading - Consumer Guarantees
eBay sales are not considered to be an auction. eBay provides a forum where businesses and individuals can sell goods by the following methods:
Because eBay does not act as an agent of the seller, eBay is not considered to be an auction by virtue of the definition of 'sale by auction' in the Australian Consumer Law.
on 25-09-2013 08:51 PM
on 25-09-2013 09:04 PM
@coast_golf wrote:I'll save you the trouble of Googling 😛
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C1914A00012
Oh, THAT Crimes Act????
Act No. 12 of 1914 as amended, taking into account amendments up to Statute Law Revision Act 2013 |
An Act relating to Offences against the Commonwealth |
Administered by: Attorney-General's |
on 25-09-2013 09:40 PM
When all is said and done, focussing purely on statute in relation to contract law is ignoring the bigger picture. Gradually contract law is becoming codified but much of contract law is still based in the common law.
I've been reluctant to mention the following for fear of upsetting a number of regulars (one in particular!) who roll their eyes at its very mention. Nevertheless if someone keeps asking me what 2+2 is, I'm not going to answer 5 to throw in a bit of variety.
In Smythe, the NSWSC ruled on 2 particularly relevant issues that had largely been untested in Australian courts at the time.
1. That eBay is not an auctioneer (as mentioned previously)
2. That a sale on eBay constitutes a valid contract
This was a C2C sale and the Court found in favour of the plaintiff. The Judgement was based almost entirely on the common law with the only legislation cited (with any relevance to the case) was, you guessed it, the Sales of Goods Act.....
Irrespective of the method of sale, auction or otherwise and whether the sale involved a corporation/business/trader/private individual, the common law of contract applies to ALL sales within Australia.
If the contract is not performed (this includes non delivery and misrepresentation), the aim of the arbiter, which is usually a Tribunal or Court, is to restore the wronged party to the same position that they would have been in had the contract been performed as originally agreed. The aim of the ACL and other applicable legislation is to simply codify certain elements of the common law of contract, it is by no means exhaustive and does not claim to be.
Non delivery is pretty clear cut but there are differing levels of misrepresentation which each have specified remedies available to the aggrieved, rescission being one that is common to all levels of misrepresentation.
I won't attempt to give a lecture on contract law (not my area of expertise anyway!) but the following is not in dispute by virtue of the Smythe judgement (and others not cited here).
1. eBay is not an auctioneer.
2. A sale on eBay constitutes a valid contract.
3. A sale between private parties at auction gives rise to potential remedies should the contract not be performed satisfactorily (at common law).
4. The Sales of Goods Act applies to C2C transactions, including those on eBay.
I'm like a dog with a bone when it comes to legal debate but to continue from here would just be repeating myself so I must respectfully bail out. Either yourself or anyone reading this thread can come to their own conclusions. Oh and as for the 2 Acts to which you linked, I'm aware of their existence, was just pointing out that the Crimes Act (Cth) does indeed exist 😉 Best of luck, I enjoyed the sparring.
on 25-09-2013 09:48 PM
@this-way-up wrote:
Consumer Protection for both buyer and seller for all sales on eBay, is administered by eBay's sister company, Paypal....Except for sales not paid for through Paypal...in which case they basically tell you to go jump!
It is the Common Law and the various Australian, State and Territory Legislations that provide Consumer Protection.
I do not understand what PayPal has to do with this thread, but I am further perplexed by the introduction of Criminal Law Legislation.
Could somebody PLEASE join the dots for me?
on 25-09-2013 10:20 PM
One last contribution, then I promise I'll crawl back into my hole lol.
Pesonally I don't believe there is an ambiguity in the context that it is written. The Criminal Code (QLD) contains the terms, may not, must not and shall not and each has an identical meaning when read contextually. Unnecessarily complicated? Perhaps, but I wouldn't say it is ambiguous.
In any case, there is something called the doctrine of contra proferentem. In laymens terms it means that where any ambiguity is present, in a contract for example, the arbiter will rely on the interpretation that least favours the individual or body that drafted the contract.
on 25-09-2013 10:32 PM
on 25-09-2013 10:36 PM
@this-way-up wrote:
Yes...and also you might find that it is accepted in legal "talk" that 'may not' means shall not or not allowed to etc...Like this -
S3.1 If you are a seller, we may not deduct funds from your account in connection with a Reversal where the following requirements are met for a transaction:
Condraticted by -
S7.3 If your purchase meets the requirements for the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy, we will attempt to recover your payment from the seller.
In affect, a buyer simply asking for a refund automatically dis-qualifies a seller from "seller protection"...and...the actual user agreement itself automatically dis-qualifies the buyer from "buyer protection" excpet in - our absolute and sole discretion.
I was going to reply to this earlier, but chose not to with respect to cats and the topic at hand (I'll try to keep it brief with said same in mind, with apologies for the side-track). Since it seems to be giving you some trouble, I'll just suggest that there are some other terms within the PayPal user agreement that put these two seemingly contradictory terms into the correct perspective - and taking each respective line out of context then putting them next to each other doesn't clarify things, just muddies the waters.
First things first, you need to look at the definitions of Buyer / Seller Protection, then what the requirements for the relevant protections are.
A reversal occurs for a range of reasons, but take a look at what Buyer Protection is first (it has nothing to do with credit cards, chargebacks, unauthorised use etc - it is confined solely to PayPal facilitated disputes concerning items that haven't been received or are not as described). Now, the most important thing is that if someone qualifies for Buyer Protection, it means they have effectively won their claim...and that means the seller has lost the dispute, and subsequently does not qualify for Seller Protection, so they do owe the money and PayPal will attempt to retrieve it from the seller's account.
on 25-09-2013 10:59 PM
@thecatspjs wrote:
I still do think that the thread deserves at least one ninja if at all possible just for my own enjoyment given a terrol hijacked my topic.
I felt that was the most appropriate (that I have in my ninja stash, anyway )
on 25-09-2013 11:05 PM
on 25-09-2013 06:21 PM
@thecatspjs wrote:
I just wanted to note that according to fair trading information on government websites, this appears not to be the case and that buyers of Australian businesses goods that....
That is correct !
However, goods sold at auction by sellers that are NOT in business of selling those goods...are classed as "private sellers" and the consumer protection rules do NOT apply.
And that, my friend INCLUDES eBay and ALL other on line and off line auctions. If a seller lists an item for sale by auction and the seller does not sell that item or that kind of item as part of their "normal" business activities, then it is a "private auction sale" and not covered by consumer Law !
on 25-09-2013 06:39 PM
@this-way-up wrote:
@thecatspjs wrote:
I just wanted to note that according to fair trading information on government websites, this appears not to be the case and that buyers of Australian businesses goods that....
That is correct !
However, goods sold at auction by sellers that are NOT in business of selling those goods...are classed as "private sellers" and the consumer protection rules do NOT apply.
And that, my friend INCLUDES eBay and ALL other on line and off line auctions. If a seller lists an item for sale by auction and the seller does not sell that item or that kind of item as part of their "normal" business activities, then it is a "private auction sale" and not covered by consumer Law !
Indeed. Nonetheless, whilst consumer guarantees may not be in place in some situations, there are a range of remedies one can pursue in relation to private sellers, as there is still a contract in place.
on 25-09-2013 06:52 PM
What contract ?
Do you mean the Paypal User Agreement that specifically and expressly states -
S7.6 You have no automatic entitlement to receive any payments under the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy.
and
S7.5 Where we are unable to recover the whole or part of your payment from the seller we may, in our absolute and sole discretion, decide to make a payment as a gesture of goodwill.
Or is it some other contract you refer to?
on 25-09-2013 06:54 PM
on 25-09-2013 06:56 PM
I thought the response posted by coast_golf in another, quite recent thread explained very well that an eBay listing constitues a contract no matter if the seller is acting as a business or privately, that the contract includes the description, and that there are (lawful) remedies available if the goods don't meet that description (since there is more than one body that regulates consumer rights / protections / guarantees, and different things are handled by different bodies).
That's the way I read it, anyway.
on 25-09-2013 06:59 PM
on 25-09-2013 07:07 PM
@this-way-up wrote:What contract ?
Do you mean the Paypal User Agreement that specifically and expressly states -
S7.6 You have no automatic entitlement to receive any payments under the PayPal Buyer Protection Policy.
Another, semi-regular poster (tall_bearded - who may come along to clarify) with some legal expertise once explained (if I remember correctly) that PayPal can not guarantee buyer protection and/or refunds in all circumstances, and thus must word their agreement in that way, because they are not offering insurance (they are not licensed as insurance providers, and to do so would involve a whole lot of other legal implications).
on 25-09-2013 07:07 PM
Yes...If the seller is a business.
on 25-09-2013 07:10 PM
@thecatspjs wrote:
The sales contract between the seller and buyer - Sale of Goods Act.
I am happy to be corrected...
But I think you will find the Sale of Goods Act is a UK (as in United Kingdom...like England and Wales etc) Act 🙂