Whitestrat
New member
*post deleted*
Last edited:
Apology
- Thread starter marxist
- Start date
Whitestrat
New member
Heh... don't worry. This has nothing to do with anyone's religion... Just a point of discussion...:twisted:
great to see your reply. why don't you explain to us why you did something like that?
ok but didn't marxist start this thread out of his own remorse/goodwill? i think if its a gesture to show his sincerity (in offering an apology) then it is very well justified. In any case, its a good thing for you to offer a different perspective ; but what i've pointed out earlier is that we might be giving too much benefit of the doubt to him.
Your lackadaisical attitude is the very reason why you have incurred the wrath of forumers here.
If anything, it is your duty to find out everything about the purchase whether or not leecs is helping you. Ebay is a transparent auction service that has its TOS and conditions laid out clearly for all to see. If i'm not wrong, there's even a user friendly / idiot proof page for you to read up on how ebay works.
In fact, i find it hard to believe that you do not know the rules. And as edder pointed out, your arrogance is simply revolting.
snuffleupagus
New member
You are all wrong, I am the only right one.
edder
New member
absolutely! let me know the links. terms and condition please refer to this post. :mrgreen:
http://soft.com.sg/forum/gear-guitar/40310-mij-epiphone-2.html#post475690
Aye, I'm glad you got your priorities right!
But ah, when it comes to da bluesssss only snuffs gotches it over da bovine!
JMguitars
New member
Are you that dumb or just in a state of denial?
Why seek to absolve yourself of partial responsibility when this circus of events were manufactured by your own doing?
You contacted a forum member who you didnt really know in person,
was advised to reconsider the action but decided to continue anyway,
had no guaranteed means of payment should the bidding succeed,
did not take the steps to understand the eBay process and buyer obligations,
asked the forum member to enter a legally binding contract in which he receives no remuneration for taking the credit risk and services rendered,
and where payment obligation could not be met, expected a "sorry" to suffice, leaving forum member (still) obligated to meet the buyer obligations on your behalf.
... and you can still think Leec is partially responsible for this?
ps - Im not trying to be rude, I just think you need to understand exactly what situation you have put someone in.
Sometimes, its enriching to learn from mistakes, ... replies like what you posted above are what reminds me of the saying "If you find yourself in a Hole, stop digging"
Best wishes, Marxist
Last edited:
Blodstyre
New member
Don't get my species involve in this matter....we may be trolls...be we know when we no money to buy.....
~meh~
BlackForest
New member
here's a neutral observation from a legal standpoint. you are correct are to say that the nominal buyer (lee) remains contractually obliged to make the relevant payments. In most situations, Lee would have a legal right to be indemnified by Marxist as he was acting as Marxist's agent in entering the contract. However, Marxist is a 17 year old boy and I think that there may be a problem with enforcing with such right of indemnity against someone who is below the contractual age of majority. I would probably conclude that Lee (very unfortunately so) would remain liable to the seller with no legal recourse of his own.
In any case, this debate is largely moot because the primary contract would be regarded as void by a court of law anyway. I understand that the guitars in question are Gibson copies and such a contract of sale would be void for illegality (trademark infringement). Moreover I think it is clear that the seller is not pursuing any action against Lee. Why? Probably because the seller is aware that Lee can validly refuse to perform the contract on grounds of misrepresentation (trying to pass off a Gibson copy as an original).
I do agree that Marxist should have been more diligent and familiarised himself with the ebay process and the legal obligations involved. However I have quoted your post because each factor should have brought home to Lee that (1) he was dealing with someone unknown and of questionable means (2) he stood nothing to gain from the transaction (3) he would remain liable if Marxist failed to meet his end of the bargain. If Marxist was guilty of being recklessly irresponsible, Lee was also culpable for displaying a lack of prudence. May all parties involved please learn from this experience and move on by closing this thread.
