your comment(knowledgeable ones pls) pls. with transaction records through sms and/or CS private messages, if one party decides to bring the case to small claims tribunal with such records of transactions, is it acceptable to them?
Does law of contract applies in CS B&S?
- Thread starter reachme2003
- Start date
- Status
iirc small claims tribunal is for non payment cases. i do not think it applies to Csers who bidded successfully B&S prices and does not turn up.
having bidded successfully and not fulfilling the financial obligation, as a result of, is an instance of 'non-payment' cases. right?
ernest_ted said:
alrite...i will just state what i still remember from what i learned from business law. in the statute, even for transactions such as auctions, when the time is up and the deal is closed, both the buyer and seller are legally binded to each other and a legally binding contract would be formed between the 2 of them, and they MUST both fulfill their obligations i.e. seller - to send the goods over & buyer - to make payment.
The only way the contract will be voided is only when BOTH parties agreed to change the terms of the contract, otherwise if its only the wish of one party, the contract is legally binding on the 2 parties, and the one at the loss can claim damages for anything that resulted from their non-fulfillment of its contractual duties.
but the problem with clubsnap auction site is that, if there is any mention that despite the auction being closed, and the item is subjected to review by the buyer, PERSONALLY i feel that the contract is not formed yet, thus u cant claim anything. but if the buyer just say ok without mentioning anything, that will be a different story.
disclaimer: Take what i wrote as just a textbook guide, dun quote me for anything k
The only way the contract will be voided is only when BOTH parties agreed to change the terms of the contract, otherwise if its only the wish of one party, the contract is legally binding on the 2 parties, and the one at the loss can claim damages for anything that resulted from their non-fulfillment of its contractual duties.
but the problem with clubsnap auction site is that, if there is any mention that despite the auction being closed, and the item is subjected to review by the buyer, PERSONALLY i feel that the contract is not formed yet, thus u cant claim anything. but if the buyer just say ok without mentioning anything, that will be a different story.
disclaimer: Take what i wrote as just a textbook guide, dun quote me for anything k
Yes. The law of contract applies everywhere a contract is made.
However, to have sufficiently accurate and detailed records in the form of sms is difficult, since a lot of promises (esp. in terms of condition of the product, etc) are likely to be verbal and subjective.
To take someone to small claims tribunal you must be able to serve notice upon the person, ie you need his real name in full and address, prob IC no as well to positively identify him.
I don't see why you should do so, it's a lot of trouble got very little gain.
However, to have sufficiently accurate and detailed records in the form of sms is difficult, since a lot of promises (esp. in terms of condition of the product, etc) are likely to be verbal and subjective.
To take someone to small claims tribunal you must be able to serve notice upon the person, ie you need his real name in full and address, prob IC no as well to positively identify him.
I don't see why you should do so, it's a lot of trouble got very little gain.
reachme2003 said:
Though I am not a legal professional, this is at least what I know of contract law.
Stating that the actual sale is subjected to review up front will effectly mean that is a "condition" of sales. Hence, the buyer or seller may refuse to sell if a reasonable reason is given.
However, there are several factors that should be considered. Was there "consideration". Since the seller is parting with his good and the buyer is willing to part with this money, than there is consideration. Regardless if the "consideration" is adaquate. Even if I am going to offer S$1 for a 600mm lens, it is still consideration.
Next is the intention to create a "legal" relationship. A buyer and seller relationship should be a legal relationship already, where the ownership of items is exchanged.
Next we would need to look into wether the seller was putting up an "offer" to sell or "an invitation to treat". If it is an "offer" to sell, than with the above 2 condition satisfied, than the buyer, on the surface of things, is legally binded to sell. If it was "an invitation to treat", than the seller is not obliged to sell even if a buyer takes up the "invitation".
How to differentiate an 'invitation to treat' or 'offer', we would need to consult a lawyer.
And I would think that the law of contract does apply to B&S in CS.
Stating that the actual sale is subjected to review up front will effectly mean that is a "condition" of sales. Hence, the buyer or seller may refuse to sell if a reasonable reason is given.
However, there are several factors that should be considered. Was there "consideration". Since the seller is parting with his good and the buyer is willing to part with this money, than there is consideration. Regardless if the "consideration" is adaquate. Even if I am going to offer S$1 for a 600mm lens, it is still consideration.
Next is the intention to create a "legal" relationship. A buyer and seller relationship should be a legal relationship already, where the ownership of items is exchanged.
Next we would need to look into wether the seller was putting up an "offer" to sell or "an invitation to treat". If it is an "offer" to sell, than with the above 2 condition satisfied, than the buyer, on the surface of things, is legally binded to sell. If it was "an invitation to treat", than the seller is not obliged to sell even if a buyer takes up the "invitation".
How to differentiate an 'invitation to treat' or 'offer', we would need to consult a lawyer.
And I would think that the law of contract does apply to B&S in CS.
ernest_ted said:
I am not sure what iirc means but..................................
The small claims tribunal has jurisdation to hear cases where there are monetary claim.
The Registrar is empowered to hear cases with claims not exceeding 10k and may be allowed to hear claims up to 20k if both party to the case give their consent.
reachme2003 said:
IMHO
There is an invitation to treat and an offer.
There is no acceptance and no consideration being exchanged.
Hence no financial obligation. Also no loss to either party.
However , i stand corrected. :bsmilie:
Ren_Hao said:
Things that are displyed on shelves on supermarket with price tag ==> invitation to treat not an offer.
When u put the item in your trolley does not mean u have accepted the offer.
Only at the check out when u pay, u have accepted the offer.
Am i right....gee...contract law classes were many moons ago..:sweatsm:
ernest_ted said:
You are rite, that is an classic example.
However, how you word an auction in B&S has an effect on determining if it is an offer or an invitation treat.
reachme2003 said:
I would think that it would depend on the nature of the auction. If it is a offer, an invitation to treat or others. If it is not an offer, than even if you have won the bid, there may not be any legal obligation. Though there might be a "moral" obligation.
PS, just personal views.
Ren_Hao said:
perhaps more like offer and counter offers.... :bsmilie:
i guess at the end of the day is willing buyer and willing seller when the price is agreed on.
Correction, the supermarket invites you to make an offer, ie you offer $X for product A. You are not accepting the offer, they are. When they take your money, they accept your offer and the contract is fulfilled.
Wai Leong
===
Wai Leong
===
ernest_ted said:
Erm...most of the time, the both parties have not entered into a formal contract to buy and sell. It has always been, reserved for viewing, formal decision to purchase/buy has not been made until the buying party has reviewed and is satisified with the item.
hmmm. ads in CS B&S are an "invitation to treat" and not an "offer" because the person in the ad does not show a willingness to enter into any legal relations with anyone as a result of the ad.
hence, as a result, the seller actually has no obligation to sell to anyone.
hence, as a result, the seller actually has no obligation to sell to anyone.
a contract comes into existance when there is an offer, acceptance & intention to create legal relation.
& yes, the ads here r just an invitation to treat, not an offer.
& yes, the ads here r just an invitation to treat, not an offer.
reading thru all these brings back my commercial law lessons many moons ago. then, there were no case law about transactions thru CS b&s. (CS did not exist then, huh!)
my sell adv in b&s is an invitation to treat. when a party make an offer to buy at a price. i, as the seller accepts the offer and communciated it to the other party. would not a contract being 'inked' in such circumstances?
my sell adv in b&s is an invitation to treat. when a party make an offer to buy at a price. i, as the seller accepts the offer and communciated it to the other party. would not a contract being 'inked' in such circumstances?
- Status
Similar threads
