Sell Your Aircraft On eBay

Ebay Moters Auctions Are non Binding!!! Read their terms......


Free Classifieds, http://classifieds.aircraftdelivery.net

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
August 3, 2007 -- Updated 1655 GMT (0055 HKT) Court rules eBay
auction is a sale

Story Highlights
Australian court orders man to hand over vintage plane worth about
$215,000

Vin Thomas tried to back out of selling 1946 WWII Wirraway plane on
eBay



http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/as....ap/index.html

Auction winner was only bidder for plane, matching $128,640 reserve
price

Winner took Thomas to court, hoping to force him to follow through
with deal

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- An Australian court ordered a man to hand
over a vintage plane worth about $215,000 after he tried to back out
of an eBay auction, a newspaper reported Friday.

The New South Wales state Supreme Court ordered Vin Thomas to complete
the deal after he changed his mind about selling the 1946 World War II
Wirraway plane he had placed on the Internet auction site last year,
the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Peter Smythe, a Australian warplane enthusiast, was the only person to
bid on the item, matching the $128,640 reserve price just moments
before the auction ended in August last year.

But Thomas had already agreed to sell the plane to someone else for
$85,800 more than Smythe's offer, and backed out of the sale, the
newspaper said.

Smythe took Thomas to court, hoping a judge would force him to follow
through with the deal.

Judge Nigel Rein agreed, saying the eBay auction formed "a binding
contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and ... should be
specifically enforced."






http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegra...005941,00.html
Historic fighting plane in eBay dogfight
October 02, 2006 12:00am

THE contractual legalities of buying and selling on eBay are being
tested in an Australian court for the first time in a case that it is
claimed could destroy public confidence in the popular online auction
site.

The case, involving the sale of a rare World War II aircraft, has
reached the NSW Supreme Court, with a judge ruling that the plane
cannot be moved from a hangar in Albury on the NSW-Victoria border
until the dispute is settled.

Adelaide "warbird" enthusiast Peter Smythe is suing Albury
radiographer Vin Thomas for allegedly breaking the rules of eBay by
refusing to hand over the plane, a 1946 Wirraway, despite making the
sale on the website.

The plane - one of only five in the world still flying - was put up
for sale on eBay by Dr Thomas in August with a reserve price of
$150,000. Mr Smythe was the only person to bid, matching the reserve
price with just 20 seconds to go before the auction closed on August
25.

But unknown to Mr Smythe, Dr Thomas had already agreed to sell the
plane to a Queensland buyer for almost $250,000. The offer was made
during the seven-day auction period, yet Dr Thomas failed to take the
plane off the eBay site. Mr Smythe now wants the NSW Supreme Court to
order Dr Thomas to hand over the plane for the agreed amount of
$150,000.

"The significance of the case is that in the event that the purchaser
fails, it would appear that parties cannot rely upon or have any
confidence to enforce agreements and auction results arising on the
eBay electronic online auction and trading system," Mr Smythe's
lawyer, Trevor Hall, said.

EBay spokesman David Feiler said sellers listing items in certain
categories, such as houses, did not enter a binding contract to carry
the transaction once the auction ended. But he would not comment on
whether a plane fell into one of those categories.

The online auction giant, which has more than three million Australian
members and 157 million worldwide, has not responded to Mr Smythe's
call for help to pay for the case.

Mr Feiler denied the case would undermine the integrity of
transactions made on eBay, through which more than 3000 Australians
are estimated to make a full-time living by buying goods and selling
them at a profit.

"In the event that an item is not received, we do have an online
dispute-resolution process to deal with that (and) there are buyer
protection programs that protect purchasers for certain amounts," he
said.

But that does not go far enough for Mr Hall as he prepares to return
to court on Friday to fight Mr Smythe's case.

There he will challenge Dr Thomas's claims that Mr Smythe's bid was
not valid.

"I did not expect anybody would pull this sort of stunt," Dr Thomas
said.

"The Queenslander gave us a quote to buy it, he did exactly what I
asked him to do and the fellow from Adelaide snuck in under my guard."
But Mr Smythe sees it differently.

"I've used eBay a bit to sell items and (the rules are) very clear,"
he said.

Dr Thomas, a first-time eBay seller, owes the dotcom more than $2000
in fees and commission because the auction ended in a sale. "I feel
like I've been hung out to dry," he said.

Without having recently seen the plane in question, approved aircraft
valuer David Gardner said the Wirraway - 755 of which were built in
Australia between 1937 and 1946 - would be worth between $150,000 and
$200,000.

Mr Smythe plans to display the Wirraway in an Adelaide museum and use
it to teach children about military history.





http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/eb...s_cid=rss_news
eBay sale is a sale, court rules

The World War II Wirraway plane ... one of five in the world still
flying.

August 3, 2007

There will be no more weasling out of eBay sales after a judge today
ruled against a man who has been refusing to hand over a $250,000
vintage plane he sold on the online auction site.

In a case that reached the NSW Supreme Court, Peter Smythe sued Vin
Thomas after he changed his mind on the sale of a 1946 World War II
Wirraway plane after the eBay auction had ended.

The plane is understood to be one of five in the world still flying.

Acting judge Nigel Rein, handing down his judgment today, ruled
against Thomas and ordered him to hand over the plane for the agreed
amount.

The date of the handover will be decided next week.

"It follows that, in my view, a binding contract was formed between
the plaintiff and the defendent and that it should be specifically
enforced," Justice Rein said in his decision.


The judgment sets a precedent for future cases and means eBay sales
could now be legally binding.

A judge had last year ruled the plane could not be moved from its
hangar in Albury until the dispute was settled.

Smythe, an Adelaide war-plane enthusiast, was the only person to bid
on the item, matching the $150,000 reserve price just seconds before
the auction ended in August last year.

But Thomas, a radilologist from Albury, had already agreed to sell the
plane to someone else for $100,000 more than Smythe's offer. Smythe
took him to court hoping a judge would force Thomas to follow through
with the sale.

Before the ruling was handed down, eBay spokesman Daniel Feiler was
adamant that any decision would have no impact on public confidence in
the auction site.

"It has always been our understanding that you are entering into a
binding contract when you are listing an item and someone has made a
bid on the item," he said, but added real estate sales were an
exception because bids on houses were only expressions of interest.

"If someone has a repeated behaviour of not purchasing or refusing to
sell the item once the thing has ended, normally we'll reach out and
educate them in the first instance but if they then show a repeated
habit of not fulfilling their commitments then they get suspended from
the site," he said.

Feiler added eBay sellers had the option to reject any bids before an
auction closed and encouraged both buyers and sellers to examine
feedback history before proceeding with a transaction.

eBay has 5 million Australian members and 17,000 of those make their
primary living from selling there, according to ACNielsen.

The Temora Aviation Museum, which houses its own Wirraway plane, said
a total of 755 were built in Australia between 1939 and 1946.

A spokeswoman for the museum said she had not seen the plane referred
to in this case but estimated it was worth around $250,000.










http://www.boston.com/news/odd/artic...ete_ebay_deal/
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/brie..._193360-1.html

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:38:22 -0400, "tom418"
wrote in :

The would-be buyer found another one, for more
money, and sued his co-worker, claiming that had he sold him HIS van, he
would have been able to buy a van cheaper (hence the "damages"). Judge Koch
agreed, awarded the plaintiff damages.

That's what I'm thinking too. I suppose it comes down to what
constitutes a contract. In California, and apparently NY, verbal
contracts are binding.

In the case of eBay, I would think the eBay User Agreement would come
into play: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html
It does mention 'legally binding contracts'.

The only other information I could find on the eBay site regarding
legally binding contracts is below:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/motors-bidding.html
Bidding on a Vehicle
Remember that each bid you place enters you into a binding
contract. If you win a listing, you’re obligated to complete the
transaction. Read the User Agreement for details.


http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/unpaid-item.html
Unpaid Item Policy
Buyers automatically enter into a legally binding contract to
purchase the item from the seller if they win the online auction
or use the Buy It Now feature.

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 15:56:46 -0700, "NW_Pilot"
wrote in
:

Ebay Moters Auctions Are non Binding!!! Read their terms......

I wasn't able to find that, but I found this:

http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/motors-bidding.html
Bidding on a Vehicle
Remember that each bid you place enters you into a binding
contract. If you win a listing, you’re obligated to complete the
transaction. Read the User Agreement for details.

The only non-binding contract mentioned was regarding real estate.

On Aug 6, 2:46 pm, Some Other Guy wrote:
Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Steve Foley" wrote in message
Back in the 1970s, I sat in on a few business law classes. I think I
remember that a contract must be fair to both sides. Being forced to sell
a plane below market value doesn't sound 'fair' to me.

I also sat through Business Law, I remember no requirement that the deal
must be fair to both sides The main requirement is that both sides freely
agree to the contract (an offer and an acceptance) and that valuable
consideration changes hands.

That's what I remember from high school law class too. There must
be renumeration for a contract to be binding, but fairness is not
a requirement.

Hence the common practise of selling an object for a nominal sum of $1
rather than simply giving it away.

Aren't titular changes in real estate are done this way quite often
when transferring property between relatives? If there is no
renumeration, it is a "gift", but even a $1 sale price makes it a
"sale." Maybe that has more to do with tax law than contract law
though, except that the contract is completely binding...

I think one of the only times "fairness" enters into contract law is
interest rate limits on loans; specific types of contracts have
regulatory or statutory constraints on them. You see that alot in
"People's Court" when the plaintiff sues for non payment and the
principle is awarded but the interest portion is denied because it
violates the constraints of the law. (No Loan Sharking Allowed g!)

Doug Semler wrote:
I think one of the only times "fairness" enters into contract law is
interest rate limits on loans; specific types of contracts have
regulatory or statutory constraints on them. You see that alot in
"People's Court" when the plaintiff sues for non payment and the
principle is awarded but the interest portion is denied because it
violates the constraints of the law. (No Loan Sharking Allowed g!)

LOL This is from a major bank's credit card site. Loan sharking is
obviously completely legal.

Annual percentage rate (APR) for purchases 18.24% variable.

Other APRs
Cash advance APR: 23.24% variable.
Default APR: 32.24% variable.

On Aug 6, 5:00 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:
I think one of the only times "fairness" enters into contract law is
interest rate limits on loans; specific types of contracts have
regulatory or statutory constraints on them. You see that alot in
"People's Court" when the plaintiff sues for non payment and the
principle is awarded but the interest portion is denied because it
violates the constraints of the law. (No Loan Sharking Allowed g!)

LOL This is from a major bank's credit card site. Loan sharking is
obviously completely legal.

Annual percentage rate (APR) for purchases 18.24% variable.

Other APRs
Cash advance APR: 23.24% variable.
Default APR: 32.24% variable.

You know. I never could figure that out. Neither the something like
400% APR charged by places that do paycheck advances (look at the
contract, the "fee" they charge is actually a "prepaid interest,"
which, over the course of a short period of time, amounts to that
insane amount.) But I can't loan my neighbor 500 bucks like that...

But, of course, those are still under "regulatory" or "statutory"
constraints. Even if the constraints are quite lax.

Doug Semler wrote:

You know. I never could figure that out. Neither the something like
400% APR charged by places that do paycheck advances (look at the
contract, the "fee" they charge is actually a "prepaid interest,"
which, over the course of a short period of time, amounts to that
insane amount.) But I can't loan my neighbor 500 bucks like that...

But, of course, those are still under "regulatory" or "statutory"
constraints. Even if the constraints are quite lax.

One good thing the Arkansas Legislature did a couple of years ago was deny
the places where you write a post dated check and then get a loan based on
it the right to use the state's hot check recovery program.

Before they did that it was a pretty sweet deal for the check/loan places.
They had the full force of the state's county sheriffs and prosecuting
attorneys to act as there collection department for bad loans.

Some Other Guy wrote:

That's what I remember from high school law class too. There must
be renumeration for a contract to be binding, but fairness is not
a requirement.

The way I learned it, was any provision of a contract was fully
negotiable until agreed upon, as long as no law is violated. "Fair" is
anything agreed to by the parties involved, regardless of what
uninvolved parties think.

I got a 3 week old riding mower and utility trailer with my house,
because I asked. G

The guy selling the plane used a reserve that has to be believed is
equal to his minimum acceptable sale price. Since he didn't, the first
bid meeting the reserve was a legally binding offer to buy at that
price, as the court ruled.

Flip it around. What would have happened if the buyer had bid $2
million, and then decided not to buy? Same deal.

The buyer could possibly agree to accept some sort of renumeration to go
away, but that's all negotiable.