I would say the wording of an ebay listing is very important, if you put incorrect details on there even unwittingly you leave yourself open. There is some suggestion that the caravan is older than the seller stated. If there was doubt he should have checked.
I cant see this claim succeeding tho due to the age of the van, but if it does go to court the seller might lose if the details on the listing were proved to be incorrect.
the caravan was listed as '97 but was actually a '95 model. The seller had the original sales receipt, it was sold new in '97 - so seller didn't mis-sell as wasn't aware.
the buyer did not inspect the van at all before buying and taking it home. Yet the judge took his side.
you know i have just ,finished reading all about his problems , and the length people go to , to make a buck or too ,don,t know how he can sleep at night
The whole point of ebay is that it is an auction. item sells at the fall of hammer so to speak. There is no requirement for the buyer to veiw before sale but there is a requirement for the seller to describe the item exactly. If the listing gives incorrect age of item then seller has no defense. If he wasn't sure of age of caravan he should have stated that on the listing.
Having read every post in the MSE thread, my own feelings are that neither the seller nor the buyer were/are being entirely honest.
Those who know about caravans would not be surprised that the van was damp - indeed, speaking for myself, I'd be less surprised to arrive home and find the Pope's helicopter parked in my garden, and His Holiness sitting waiting for me in my living room, that I would be to find out that a UK van of that age *wasn't* rotten! - but that's me, and we shouldn't forget that there are thousands of people out there who have no knowledge of caravans, nor of the dismal way in which they have been constructed.
The buyer might, or might not, have been one of those un-knowledgeable persons.
What is clear is that the seller let the van go for about 40% of the price he might reasonably have hoped to obtain for it - why?
Because he knew it was damp?, who can say?.
Further, the caravan was rejected by the initial auction winner - ostensibly because of 'minor niggles' - but isn't it also entirely possible that the first purchaser turned up, realised that the van was rotten, and walked away?
If so, it is inconceivable that he didn't inform the seller *why* he wasn't buying it, and the seller would then have passed it on to the second buyer in the full knowledge (if he didn't know already) that the caravan was damp.
Much has been made of the purchaser's 'scrap' valuation of £600 - yet the final selling price of £850 is in line with that figure - and does confirm that the caravan was worth only about that sum, and not the £1250 that he paid for it after receiving assurances from the seller that it was not, to his knowledge, damp.
Yes, the purchaser has raised £250 more than the £600 valuation - but that is hardly a major profit, and certainly doesn't indicate that the caravan was in the condition suggested by the original seller.
It's hard not to come to the conclusion that, in this particular case, the seller got the buyer that he deserved.
Post last edited on 26/05/2009 01:46:20
Post last edited on 26/05/2009 01:47:37
------------- 'If it ain't broke, don't worry - it soon will be'
But there was nothing to stop the buyer walking away if, when he got to the storage site, the van was not what he expected. He didn't, he took the van then stropped off later.
The buyer then went on to advertise the van as having "signs of slight damp" or similar wording, this doesn't imply the damp is so bad that the van is worth nothing other than scrap value.
But there was nothing to stop the buyer walking away if, when he got to the storage site, the van was not what he expected. He didn't, he took the van then stropped off later.
The buyer then went on to advertise the van as having "signs of slight damp" or similar wording, this doesn't imply the damp is so bad that the van is worth nothing other than scrap value.
Who knows, all seems a bit of a pickle to me.
Ali
True enough - although the purchaser *might* have been one of the people who have no idea about caravan damp, and might have assumed that all caravans smelled like that
That's why I think that *both* parties have been a bit less than honest in this case - which gives us all a timely reminder to be totally accurate with descriptions when we sell something.
FWIW, I've blocked the purchaser from any of my own auctions I've got perfect Ebay feedback, and I'd like it to stay that way!
------------- 'If it ain't broke, don't worry - it soon will be'
The whole story on the other forum is very one sided in the sellers favour.
There must be some substance to the buyers claim for him to win the court case.
Prima facie, it does appear to be a lucky escape for the buyer who has made around £400ish profit through his claim and selling on the caravan.
The seller does have 100% ebay feedback going back over 4 years so should have some moral scruples.
Ultimately, it looks to me as though the seller has been caught out by not accurately describing the caravan and the buyer has made a meal of it.
I have to say I did not read through all pages of the thread but it seems to me that the easiest way out of such a dilemma is to offer to take the item back and refund. He would have saved himself a lot of hassle! Unfortunately he spent the money!
Am I dreaming but was there not a thread on here not so long ago about a similar situation but from the byers viewpoint!
i think its very interesting from the aspect of someone selling a caravan - which i'm sure many people on this site will do at least once.
i admit it is one sided but...
The fact that the buyer can have all the opportunity to inspect the van, but does not, as takes it away, happily parts with the cash and THEN a period of time later can take you to court over it, not follow the courts process by failing to produce evidence prior to the hearing and still win?
what ever happened to buyer beware?
maybe useful to anyone who does buy a van from ebay and a later finds issues. there is recourse.
a very one sided thread witch gives a inaccurate picture of the whole story ,maybe the Buyer would have liked to give his side so a balanaced view could have been obtained. Almost bought a van of E Bay myself it was advertised very misleadingly fortunatly we went to view it riddled with damp down one complete side ,the vendor went on to sell it for £1000 ,wasted one day and nearly 200 miles to view it .
Moral of the tale never buy with out viewing and if selling be honest.
I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread so I flicked thru & the case is lost on page 12.
I would say the seller's goose was cooked simply because he did not take enough trouble to describe the caravan correctly. The whole point of an ebay auction is that the item must be 'as described' if it isnt, age or whatever then it appears if the buyer does'nt notice at time of collection that the item is 'not as described' he can successfully sue.
It is no defence for the seller to say that he himself was misled when he bought the item. If he is not certain of age or damp etc, he must state that on the listing.
It amazes me the amount of VW campers on ebay that are listed as Westfalias when clearly they arn't. I know that, but a buyer unfamiliar whith VWs may not, he may well pay for the camper & learn later that the item was 'not as described' it seems he could litigate & win.
Quote: Originally posted by Kabbes on 26/5/2009I would say the seller's goose was cooked simply because he did not take enough trouble to describe the caravan correctly.
Having read it all, to me it seems that the big problem is that the buyer came back to complain having had the oportunity to walk away. A little like buying a car and complaining that the cam belt snapped after 250 miles, which just aint on after you have bought it!!
If you bought a car even if it was old & the cambelt snapped after only 250miles you would certainly have a case. You could argue car was 'not fit for purpose' even if it was a private sale.
It could be said that any secondhand item may well be faulty because it is not new, but if the disgruntled buyer sues & the judge agrees it was 'not fit for purpose' then the buyer wins his case.
This is of course subjective. A buyer would not have a case if a privately purchased oldish car broke down 6mnths later but he might if it broke down in the first week.
Anybody is entitled to sue if they feel hard done by, county court judgements as described in the op can never be predicted, the judge does not look at what is fair, only what is legal.
This is hardly relavent to the op anyway, from what I can see the seller lost his case because he did not accurately describe the caravan in the ebay listing.
Amazing family weekend with old steam engines, classic car displays, market stalls, and full catering and bar. And camping on site - Save £25 by booking in advance.
Topic: Caravan sold on ebay - Trouble with buyer
I've got perfect Ebay feedback, and I'd like it to stay that way!
