On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:46:29 +0100, Spacker
 wrote:

>You seem to confuse UK law with ebay terms and conditions. 

Which UK law are you referring to?

>The two are
>not the same, and no private company's terms and conditions can over
>ride UK law, even if accepting those terms and conditions is a
>condition of using that private company's services. 

Which bit of :-

"55 Exclusion of implied terms
(1) Where a right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of
sale of goods by implication of law, it may (subject to the Unfair
Contract Terms Act 1977) be negatived or varied by express agreement,
or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by such usage as
binds both parties to the contract"

are you having difficulty with?

Peter Parry  wrote:
 

>On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 11:46:29 +0100, Spacker
> wrote:
>
>>You seem to confuse UK law with ebay terms and conditions. 
>
>Which UK law are you referring to?
>
>>The two are
>>not the same, and no private company's terms and conditions can over
>>ride UK law, even if accepting those terms and conditions is a
>>condition of using that private company's services. 
>
>Which bit of :-
>
>"55 Exclusion of implied terms
>(1) Where a right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of
>sale of goods by implication of law, it may (subject to the Unfair
>Contract Terms Act 1977) be negatived or varied by express agreement,
>or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by such usage as
>binds both parties to the contract"
>
>are you having difficulty with?

Subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would be the pertinent
phrase. You can't have terms of use that take away or negate your
legal rights. It's like the shops that put up signs saying no refunds,
a credit note will be issued. UK law over rules that sign. Creating a
sign like that doesn't take away your right to a cash refund.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:02:39 +0100, Spacker
 wrote:

>Peter Parry  wrote:


>>Which bit of :-
>>
>>"55 Exclusion of implied terms
>>(1) Where a right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of
>>sale of goods by implication of law, it may (subject to the Unfair
>>Contract Terms Act 1977) be negatived or varied by express agreement,
>>or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by such usage as
>>binds both parties to the contract"
>>
>>are you having difficulty with?
>
>Subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would be the pertinent
>phrase. 

The contract terms have to be fair, not unchanged from the default.

>You can't have terms of use that take away or negate your
>legal rights. 

You are hopelessly mixing up contract law and consumer protection law
and understanding neither.  Consumer law in most cases prevents a
seller from altering the Sale of Goods Act  S14 implied (unstated)
terms in a consumer contract.  General contract law _does_  allow such
changes (subject to the test of fairness).  It is only in consumer
contracts where the S14 terms cannot be altered.  S14 has nothing to
do with how a contract is formed.

>It's like the shops that put up signs saying no refunds,
>a credit note will be issued. UK law over rules that sign. Creating a
>sign like that doesn't take away your right to a cash refund.

It can.  If the sale is in a trade shop doing business to business
sales and it is not a consumer transaction it will be quite legal.

Which law do you think lays down how a conditional contract must be
made?

Which law do you think gives a seller a right to withdraw from a
conditional contact unilaterally?

Peter Parry  wrote:
 

>On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:02:39 +0100, Spacker
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Parry  wrote:
>
>
>>>Which bit of :-
>>>
>>>"55 Exclusion of implied terms
>>>(1) Where a right, duty or liability would arise under a contract of
>>>sale of goods by implication of law, it may (subject to the Unfair
>>>Contract Terms Act 1977) be negatived or varied by express agreement,
>>>or by the course of dealing between the parties, or by such usage as
>>>binds both parties to the contract"
>>>
>>>are you having difficulty with?
>>
>>Subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 would be the pertinent
>>phrase. 
>
>The contract terms have to be fair, not unchanged from the default.
>
>>You can't have terms of use that take away or negate your
>>legal rights. 
>
>You are hopelessly mixing up contract law and consumer protection law
>and understanding neither.  Consumer law in most cases prevents a
>seller from altering the Sale of Goods Act  S14 implied (unstated)
>terms in a consumer contract.  General contract law _does_  allow such
>changes (subject to the test of fairness).  It is only in consumer
>contracts where the S14 terms cannot be altered.  S14 has nothing to
>do with how a contract is formed.
>
>>It's like the shops that put up signs saying no refunds,
>>a credit note will be issued. UK law over rules that sign. Creating a
>>sign like that doesn't take away your right to a cash refund.
>
>It can.  If the sale is in a trade shop doing business to business
>sales and it is not a consumer transaction it will be quite legal.
>
>Which law do you think lays down how a conditional contract must be
>made?
>
>Which law do you think gives a seller a right to withdraw from a
>conditional contact unilaterally?

Where are advertisements, whether online or in traditional media,
defined in law as a conditional contract?

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:42:04 +0100, Spacker
 wrote:

>>Which law do you think lays down how a conditional contract must be
>>made?

>>Which law do you think gives a seller a right to withdraw from a
>>conditional contact unilaterally?

I notice you claim the law supports you but don't seem to know which
law it might be.

>Where are advertisements, whether online or in traditional media,
>defined in law as a conditional contract?

In their words.  A contract is an agreement between two parties.  That
agreement can take one of a number of forms.  It matters not what it
is called, it is judged upon its content.  A common conditional
contract is money off vouchers.  The seller prints them in a newspaper
and by doing so establishes a conditional contract .  The contract is
that if you buy a box of the specified product they will reduce the
advertised price by 50p (or whatever). .  The contract to reduce the
price is conditional upon you buying the product but is made by the
seller before you do so.  It is binding upon the seller at the point
of sale, they cannot refuse to accept your offer of the voucher..

In eBay auction style sales you are making a conditional contract "If
you are the one offering the most money when the sale period ends I
accept your offer".  

As a seller you have agreed that this is a condition of the contract
of sale :-

"5.3 Binding Bids. A seller who receives at least one bid at or above
the stated minimum bid price (or in the case of reserve auctions, at
or above the reserve price) must complete the transaction with the
highest bidder on completion of the listing, unless: (a) the item is
listed in a category under our Non-Binding Bid Policy; (b) the buyer
fails to meet the conditions of the seller's listing (such as payment
method); or (c) the seller cannot authenticate the buyer's identity."

This isn't "eBay law" or any other such nonsense but UK contract law.

Peter Parry  wrote:
 

>On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:42:04 +0100, Spacker
> wrote:
>
>>>Which law do you think lays down how a conditional contract must be
>>>made?
>
>>>Which law do you think gives a seller a right to withdraw from a
>>>conditional contact unilaterally?
>
>I notice you claim the law supports you but don't seem to know which
>law it might be.
>
>>Where are advertisements, whether online or in traditional media,
>>defined in law as a conditional contract?
>
>In their words.  A contract is an agreement between two parties.  That
>agreement can take one of a number of forms.  It matters not what it
>is called, it is judged upon its content.  A common conditional
>contract is money off vouchers.  The seller prints them in a newspaper
>and by doing so establishes a conditional contract .  The contract is
>that if you buy a box of the specified product they will reduce the
>advertised price by 50p (or whatever). .  The contract to reduce the
>price is conditional upon you buying the product but is made by the
>seller before you do so.  It is binding upon the seller at the point
>of sale, they cannot refuse to accept your offer of the voucher..
>
>In eBay auction style sales you are making a conditional contract "If
>you are the one offering the most money when the sale period ends I
>accept your offer".  
>
>As a seller you have agreed that this is a condition of the contract
>of sale :-
>
>"5.3 Binding Bids. A seller who receives at least one bid at or above
>the stated minimum bid price (or in the case of reserve auctions, at
>or above the reserve price) must complete the transaction with the
>highest bidder on completion of the listing, unless: (a) the item is
>listed in a category under our Non-Binding Bid Policy; (b) the buyer
>fails to meet the conditions of the seller's listing (such as payment
>method); or (c) the seller cannot authenticate the buyer's identity."
>
>This isn't "eBay law" or any other such nonsense but UK contract law.

So it only applies if you are selling vouchers on ebay?