eBay Buyer Can’t Sue Out-of-State Seller in Home State, Says Court - 6,557 Views, 4 Comments
|
Previous Article « Zooming Google Maps
Read Next Article » Does Your Computer Suffer from Unsightly Data Seepage?
In what is believed to the the first case of its kind, a judge in New York has held that a resident of New York who purchases something over eBay cannot sue the seller in New York if the seller lives elsewhere. Put another way, the Court ruled that the seller, who in this case lives in Missourri, cannot be reached by New York’s jurisdiction just because he sold something to someone who lives in New York, even if he did cheat the New York buyer. The issue arose when Masood H. Sayeedi bid on and won a Chevy engine. He paid the seller, Timothy Walser, nearly $1,500 for it. Walser’s eBay listing claimed that the engine was brand new, “fresh from the shop”, and “built by a pro”. In reality, when Sayeedi received the engine, he had to take it in to a mechanic, and another $1,100 later, he was told that the camshaft was damaged, the connecting rod broken, and, the mechanic’s report advised, “Engine is no good, need to replace engine.” That’s when Sayeedi sued in New York on the premise that by selling across the Internet to a resident of New York, Walser had conducted business in New York state sufficient to draw him in to New York’s jurisdiction. The judge, Philip Straniere, held that Sayeedi’s premise was wrong, holding that “Given this unique sale style, even though a contract may be formed, the location of delivery is not likely in the seller’s realm of contemplation. In the typical on-line auction sale the ultimate destination of any item is completely determined by the potential buyers through the bidding process. Accordingly, to summon the Defendant into a New York court on this matter would contravene the traditional notions of ‘fair play’ and ’substantial justice’ that have become the touchstone of personal jurisdiction.” The Court concluded that “The Court lacks the personal jurisdiction required to reach the merits of this case. A single transaction conducted on-line via eBay between members where one member is a resident of a state other than New York, without more, does not constitute sufficient purposeful availment to satisfy the minimum contacts necessary to justify summoning across state lines, to a New York court, the seller of an alledgedly non-conforming good.” Now, before all you eBay sellers go running out and start selling flawed items figuring that so long as the buyer is a few states away, they can’t do anything, there are a few things you need to know about this case. First, this court was the trial level court. Which means it does not set any precedent. Second, neither party had a lawyer (and in fact Walser didn’t even bother to show up). Had Sayeedi had a lawyer - particularly one knowledgeable about Internet and interstate law - he might have presented a more credible arguement which in turn might have swayed the judge in his favour. Finally, because this is a trial court decision, Sayeedi can appeal, and if he does, and with a lawyer, this could go in a completely different direction - and as an appeal that would set precedent. Ironically - or perhaps poetically - the New York civil code which deals with jurisdiction, and which Judge Straniere applied in this case, was code 404, which in this case clearly meant “jurisdiction not found.”
Follow Anne on Twitter
eBay Buyer Can’t Sue Out-of-State Seller in Home State, Says Court
Twitter Explained in Plain English
Previous Article « Zooming Google Maps
Read Next Article » Does Your Computer Suffer from Unsightly Data Seepage?
Read more:
» eBay to Stop Sellers from Posting Negative Buyer Ratings
» State of Pennsylvania is an eBay Power Seller
» New Ohio Law Requires eBay Sellers to Get Licensed and Post Bond
For additional similar stories check out our archives on Internet Law, eBay
NOTE: We never, ever, ever will recommend any product or service on this site that we have not regularly used ourselves and do not wholeheartedly believe in. That said, in some cases after being very pleased with a product or service, we may enter into a relationship with the provider of that product or service such that if someone purchases that product or service based on our recommendation, we may get a small payment. Such payments go towards the upkeep of the Internet Patrol.
Since the “actual damages” were less than $3,000, would this have even gone to a real “trial court”? Dunno about NY, but IIRC, in many states, if the amount is under $5,000, the case goes to small claims court. The jurisdiction of a small claims court is pretty narrow.
IANAL, but another course of action might be to take this to federal authorities and file a complaint of wire fraud. If Walser was found guilty of wire fraud, he could be forced to pay restitution as part of his sentencing.
Comment by Greg — 3/11/2007 @ 4:48 pm
This is definitely the jurisdiction of Federal courts, since it was interstate commerce. He should definitely get a lawyer and try again, this time in Federal court.
Comment by Bryan — 3/13/2007 @ 9:21 am
What do you all think of this.
I clearly state in all my ebay item’s descriptions that I ship “within 1-15 days after receipt of payment.”.
I have now received approximately 5 neutral derogatory feedbacks and 3 negative derogatory feedbacks. All of which the buyer’s complained that I did not ship fast enough or they “felt” it was slow. In each and every incident I had shipped within my promised terms of “1-15 days”. I had done nothing wrong. When a seller list an item on ebay, when they get to the shipping section, ebay policy gives the seller several options for shipping duration, either 1 or 5 or 10 or 15 or up t 30 days.
But when I informed ebay that I used the options eBay gave me so they should defend the rights they gave me they give me no response.
Whenever a bidder places a bid on ebay they are given a confirmation screen that states they are entering a binding contract and they are agreeing that they accept the buyer’s terms and everything the buyer states in the description and on the item.
Not to mention the numerous pages and and info a person must read in order to sign up to become a ebay member.
So the 5-7 derogatory feedbacks that I’ve received from the buyer’s in which I have kept my promised terms and done nothing wrong, is that not breech of contract? And defamatory?
Those derogatory feedbacks can and do cause me financial losses.
In almost every incident the buyer times their feedback to coincide with an important item soon ending. They do that in attempts to ruin the final bidding on the items.
In 2 cases the buyers have agreed to retract their feedbacks. But the damage has already been done. Although the feedback is removed the comments still remain. Therefore the effects linger.
Should not ebay be liable to protect a seller in this case? After all it is a option and right they give to a seller.
I guess the best I can hope to do is to get a court order to have each and every of the unjust derogatory feedbacks removed.
That would be costly I assume
I think I should be able to sue all parties.
Please don’t bother me about grammar. I typed this in one straight nonstop rant.
Comment by Edward — 9/4/2007 @ 2:21 pm
Sorry.
I didn’t intend to hijack this thread.
Maybe I should have posted a separate topic.
I never come to this website.
It is the first link that showed up when I searched for key words “ebay buyer seller small claims”
Comment by Edward — 9/4/2007 @ 2:23 pm