| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 71754 | 2006-08-15 12:07:00 | Disputes Tribunal Matter - Advice/Opinions | not.my.s0ck (10995) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 478731 | 2006-08-15 23:58:00 | Saves space really Greg, me no think server can handle lots of imagesA seven hundred million dollar company can't afford a few more servers? YouTube seem to manage quite nicely with umpteen times the bandwidth and disk space. TradeMe are just damn cheapskates! :D | Greg (193) | ||
| 478732 | 2006-08-16 06:50:00 | If it was sold as an auction the consumers guarantees act doesn't apply meaning the only thing he can try & take you on is the contractual remedies act.....you specified the faults & condition so your fine. Being a low value transaction, the Fair Trading Act is probably more applicable to this sale than the Contractual Remedies Act, the latter applies more to auctioneers and is not really relevant on Trade Me. Provided you posted an image of the screen, and your descriptions were as stated, you probably have little to worry about. Being under 18, the buyer was not lawfully entitled to bid for the item though, so it is possible that the purchase/sale could be ruled invalid. Just exactly where that leaves you I'm not quite sure, but if you win the argument about the description of the goods, I don't think the Tribunal Referee would penalise you for the buyer's breach by reversing the transaction. On the basis of what you have told us, and assuming that you have told the truth (it is always tempting to gloss over your own shortcomings in order to make your case sound better) I don't believe that a Tribunal Referee would find against you, however take nothing for granted, go fully prepared with three copies of everything you propose to rely on in your arguments, and lay it all out as clearly and logically as you can. On the day, be soft spoken and polite, call the referee Sir or M'am according to gender, don't let yourself be baited by the buyer's father, and stick to the facts. Stay away from irrelevant matters (don't argue the buyer's age unless it becomes an issue) and stick to your basic argument that the goods were in full working order apart from the screen fault, and you made that defect quite clear in the description used for the auction, supported by a photograph showing the extent of the problem. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 478733 | 2006-08-16 08:16:00 | Being a low value transaction, the Fair Trading Act is probably more applicable to this sale than the Contractual Remedies Act, the latter applies more to auctioneers and is not really relevant on Trade Me. True, in saying that the only basis they can take him on is if he misled or deceived the bidder. The Sale of Goods Act may apply as well and that comes down to "merchantable quality"........basicly the goods should do what they are supposed to do and be of reasonable quality given the price, in this instance assuming what were told is true he specified the fault & I guess it sold at a resonable price. I wouldn't worry about it....people often threaten it but never follow through hoping you'll give in without actually having to get that far. Cheers KiwiMR2 |
KiwiMR2 (6464) | ||
| 478734 | 2006-08-16 10:18:00 | True, in saying that the only basis they can take him on is if he misled or deceived the bidder. The Sale of Goods Act may apply as well and that comes down to "merchantable quality"........basicly the goods should do what they are supposed to do and be of reasonable quality given the price, in this instance assuming what were told is true he specified the fault & I guess it sold at a resonable price. Umm.....minor correction to my previous post :blush:, I forgot that the Fair Trading Act does not apply to private sales (nor does the CGA for that matter, but we were not even considering that) so the Sale of Goods Act is about all that can be applied, plus good old commonsense. The rest of my comments remain as stated. The father is legally allowed to act as his son's representative at the Disputes Tribunal and most probably he will presents his son's case, so don't let any emotive arguments about "ripping off kids" be thrown at you or pushed at the Referee either, you didn't know the age of the buyer and they were not legally allowed to buy on line anyway. That was a breakdown in parental supervision so the father bears some responsibility for this situation occurring. Good luck. Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 478735 | 2006-08-16 11:35:00 | Actually I'm only 16 years old myself and somehow he found out and reported me to Tradme. My account was disabled but I got one back on him and instantly dobbed him in :) I contacted Trademe and I can reactivate my account as soon as I send afew documents and his written permission to accept all legal responsibilty on my behalf although I probably wont get that sorted out til either I need a new DVD burner (my old benq went kaput after I spent 3 hours trying to fix it...) or its time to sell my xbox. You win some you lose some. Also I sent him an email that was abusive. Not abusive with foul language or threatening, just said how he must've been an idiot to not realise that he was buying a faulty iPod. Of course I apologised later on :p Worst. Mistake. Ever. His dad mentioned something about the crimes act but I think that was purely a bluff. Another thing to mention is that his dad says he spent 25 years in the "legal profession". This could mean he's a lawyer right? That would mean he CANNOT represent his son in court but also he could have a pretty strong argument. Oh- and I'm going to represent myself. I've decided to think of this as, in my mums own words, "a fun learning opportunity" :) |
not.my.s0ck (10995) | ||
| 478736 | 2006-08-16 21:09:00 | Another thing to mention is that his dad says he spent 25 years in the "legal profession". This could mean he's a lawyer right? Or he cleaned the law firms toilets. Or he was tealady. Or he was a clerk. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 478737 | 2006-08-16 22:39:00 | Actually I'm only 16 years old myself and somehow he found out and reported me to Trademe . You could possibly be off the hook there, but don't get your hopes up yet . I suspect that since both complainant and seller were minors, the Disputes Tribunal may not have jurisdiction or may not be able to hear the dispute for other reasons . I emphasise that this is outside my area of Tribunal experience (maybe Winston could help if he's lurking out there?) but generally speaking minors cannot enter into contracts for sale & purchase except for the typical daily cash transactions that everybody makes . Auctions may be one of the illegal activities, so there is a chance that you could be required to reverse the deal because it was an "invalid transaction", which is the outcome the buyer is looking for anyway . For a "no risk" enquiry I'd recommend that your parents phone the local District Court (usually the home of the Disputes Tribunal) and ask if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a dispute between two minors, or a minor represented by an adult and an unrepresented minor (the latter if you appear alone, which could be a good tactic or a bad tactic depending on circumstances) . It is best that you are fully informed of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and your own rights and obligations before this goes any further . Cheers Billy 8-{) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 478738 | 2006-08-17 00:17:00 | Yes I agree with Billy. I think the wisdom of an adult is required here. Although not.my.sock may think he knows it all like most 16 year olds do, I very much doubt it. Ian Grant has a name for a 16 year old who thinks they know it all. A lawyer. :lol Trevor :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||