Ebay convicted and fined in France

[scalem X]

Lenny. Links to illegal downloads are completely legal. After all once you click it, you leave the site and the site can't be accountable anymore.

Instead, the Site is a venue to allow anyone to offer, sell, and buy just about anything, at any time, from anywhere, in a variety of pricing formats, which include auction-style and fixed price formats.

Actually the Belgian company law forbids auction-style of most goods outside of places registered for auction...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Lenny

Three people. One is inside a shop - the seller. The second is outside, looking at things in the window - the buyer. The third is the person who owns the property the shop is in, who also acts as a "middle man", taking information from the seller to the buyer and vice versa. As the shop and the shop window are prime property, eBay charges the seller a small fee to have both the shop and things in the window. eBay then goes and stands outside to wait for people ...

But as you describe it, the third person has gone far beyond just being the landlord and become an active participant in the sale. By actively participating (not just renting space) he should accept some of the responsibility.

And as for the terms that users have to agree to -- some contracts are not legally enforceable. Someone may ask you to sign a waiver and all the time they know that it's not really binding, but they don't expect you to know that (and in most case they're right).

[Ursa major]

It seems that eBay has facilitated the sale of a counterfeit Hermes bag. At the very least, doesn't this make it an accessory?



(This is not the long lost - or is it lost long? - post, by the way.)

[Grimward]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

It's still all a bit weak, Grim.

eBay is turning a good old profit and yet they seem to want to avoid most or all responsibility for their money-making activities. (I've heard, on consumer affairs programmes on the radio, plenty of examples where eBay simply walks away from their responsibilities; they don't, as far as I know, walk away from their profits.)

Hmm, intention wasn't to exonerate EBay, Urse. I think they're culpable of something here, without question. Hanging the "fraudulent" charge on them, however, is where this verdict goes sour. EBay did not knowingly front the fraudulent goods, although if you want to accuse them of negligence in their screening (or lack thereof), claim handling, or other post-fraudulent event handling, that may very well be a different matter.

In short, accomplice or otherwise negligent, sure (ie, there's potential here). Perpetrator of the fraud, no way.

[Ursa major]

It's not a matter of me or anyone here accusing them, Grim; they were found guilty in a French Court of Law.

I'm assuming the case dealt with more than the goods simply being on the eBay site. (Perhaps they'd been told and they'd done nothing - I've seen this said about eBay on another forum - or perhaps they'd allowed someone to sell multiple Hermes bags at an unrealistically low price and the court thought they'd been more than negligent, given that they were also a beneficiary of each sale.)

[Grimward]

The "you" was meant to be general, not specific to yourself, my good fellow (apologies for the vague assignment), and I was speaking to the charge; more specifically the notion that EBay could be charged with fraud in this instance, not the Court's verdict.

And I'm quite sure you're right; there are matters of precedence at question here that have varying relevance around the world, depending on each locale's statutes and interpretation of fraud. The verdict, however, had to be based on the charge at hand, and (I'm guessing) the court apparently decided that the telling argument by Hermes' attourneys was because they (EBay) intervene in the sale when it does not move well enough or fast enough. In other words, the justification that EBay takes a cut is augmented here by the fact that EBay has conditions under which they shift from venue to party to the transaction. I've seen these "services" listed on EBay to sellers; score one for Hermes' attourneys!

I still think that they'd have to substantiate that EBay actually DID SO here, but am less distrurbed on the point than before I found the link above. Would think EBay has grounds for an appeal, at a minimum.

[Ursa major]

I couldn't get that link to work (I think my firewall's stopping it), but I have seen that argument (the one in bold) used on another forum.

[Grimward]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I couldn't get that link to work (I think my firewall's stopping it), but I have seen that argument (the one in bold) used on another forum.

Sorry Urse, forgot that the link prompt delivers a ready-made "http://" so that was in there twice. Here's a better attempt

[Ursa major]

Thanks, Grim. It worked this time.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Lenny

You'd have thunk that eBay would have something in Terms and Conditions saying that they are not responsible for what is sold and bought - they can't be expected to view every listing, surely?

The guilty parties are the sellers, not eBay. It's like saying that Google should be convicted and fined because you can find illegal downloads through the search engine. Yes, eBay do get a cut of every sale, but to be held completely responsible for something they themselves didn't actually do sounds crazy.

I bought an 'antique' chess set, supposedly bone, when it arrived it was obviously some kind of cast composite. I complained to e-bay. Six months later they guy was still selling identical 'antique' chess sets.

e-bay don't care. Alright they can't check every single item for sale but they should follow up complaints dilligently and take action. They rarely do.

They've only got themselves to blame.

[Ursa major]

Another case has come to a decision:

BBC NEWS | Business | Court fines eBay over fake goods

[TheEndIsNigh]

Jumping in at the end here but these conditions that Obeyo set out before you become a member. I'm no lawyer but if they added (just to cover themselves) Users of the system will indemnify Obeyo against the terms of the local money laundering laws I suspect it would be ruled as nonsense.

I have always wondered about the old

The management of the (inset facility) accept no liability howsoever caused for any damage to (insert property/people concerned).

It doesn't mean they aren't liable. It just means (to me anyway) prove it was our fault. If someone dies due to your negligence in your car park, standing up in court and saying

"I put a sign up your honour" isn't going to cut much ice.

Accepting liability is a no no clause in most car insurance policy. I.E. you mustn't, following an accident, get out of your car and say to the other driver words such as:-

- Sorry
- I didn't see you
- It was my fault I'll pay for the damage

Unless you are prepared to have the insurance company rub their hands with glee (and wipe their hand of you).

It’s (or it should be) similar with Obeyo they may not accept the are liable it doesn't always mean they aren’t. Try sticking a couple of kilo’s of (insert favourite recreational material) on the site. Bet they don’t say oh well it’s nothing to do with us and I bet the authorities think the same.

If not why bother with all those speed boats dodging the RN and prating about in the Gulf. Just stick it on Obeyo and let Paypat sort out the big buys.

Ursa : On a practical point I've noticed if you click on the preview screen and then accidentally press a key other than <CTR> key it acts as a go back button and of course you end your post right there.

[Ursa major]

Thanks, TEIN.