posted on April 12, 2002 03:29:23 PM new
Valleygirl, I filed here thinking they could combine the cases but they couldn't. I had to file the countersuit up there by mail.
I thought all judges ruled on the spot but perhaps that is only on TV. Perhaps they don't want a fight on their hands and that is the reason for the notification by mail.
posted on April 12, 2002 04:46:22 PM new
I have had a friend of mine go to court a few times in this new year. All of these times, he had to wait for a verdict by mail. I originally thought it was to protect the safety of the judge, but then I thought about it... It is probably to do research and be certain that they are following the laws, rules, and precedence correctly.
posted on April 12, 2002 09:04:26 PM new
Valleygirl, we sold the armoire around Xmas for less, mileage to & from court, mailing fees, and notary. I don't think it is unreasonable. Unfortunately, you can't charge for your time in small claims, otherwise, the bill would be higher!
The new buyer of the armoire also bought the matching bed. He put it together with no problems whatsoever. I told him that he could telephone and we could talk him through it on the phone if he had problems. He did fine without us and he is very happy with his purchase.
That armoire is more well traveled than I am! From France to Southern CA, Southern CA to Northern CA two times and back and now it resides in PA.
posted on April 19, 2002 04:06:22 PM new
Well, the verdict is in and not what we expected. We are required to pay them the $645.58 plus cost of their suit $170. They said that we failed to prove our case.
During the case when I tried to tell the judge our side, he was so busy adding that he didn't want me to talk. I offered my document which had all the figures on it but it seemed to anger him. He was near retirement and I believe he needs to take that step. I had one small claims case but it was nothing like this; the judge was attentive and I felt at ease talking to him. He also said that he would have preferred the declaration from the driver and not the operations manager. Since the venue is not in our city, I could not have witnesses.
Mr. Spock was right. I should have just written a check.
posted on April 19, 2002 05:29:57 PM new
but daleeric, didnt they cashed that check with the statement that cashing will make it final? On people's court, thats how a honest guy won, because the other party cashed a check with that statement on it, as judge milian said once the other party cashes the check, tough, its a done deal. Is this old geezer judge not playing by the books? I doubt peoples court's milian could be wrong about this issue. I guess the message here is what half.com says about their fraudent buyers, buyer is always right no matter what they do.
[ edited by ironking on Apr 19, 2002 05:39 PM ]
posted on April 19, 2002 06:17:05 PM new
On second thought, this just shows that only crooks win in this time and age. Look at all the fraudent buyers at half, and how half is ALWAYS on their side. Or look at ebays, they will listen to a newbie with a zero, because I filed a NPB and FVF, they report to ebays that I filed a false report, and that I cashied their check that I never gotten, ebays send me a warning. Or a guy with 2 feedback, havent gotten a feedback since 1999, thought my shipping charge of 3.90 (actual shiping cost) was outrageous as it should have included a Dc and insurance, so he reports me to ebays for fraud, and ebays almost try to NARU me!
And look at crooked sellers at ebays. a honest one gets shafted, while crooks like thebarry runs off with 150,000 dollars from over 159 bidders, who does ebays and paypal protect? thebarry of course. This is a sad day.
posted on April 19, 2002 06:20:47 PM new
I was able to provide that evidence as well. I got a copy of the cancelled check from the bank to show that the buyer crossed it out. I guess the point is with this verdict: should we all go out of business? I think the verdict sets such a bad precident for small business that none of us even have a chance. The only reason that I fought this was because of the moral issue. Can't say that I really think that pays at the moment. If the drivers don't wish to pursue it, why should I be their defender?
posted on April 19, 2002 06:29:48 PM new
Geez, I can't believe you lost. It's probably not worth the cost of appealing. Maybe you should send the "buyer" his award in coin. Shipping on 800+ pennies would be outrageous, but box of the dollar-coins might not be too bad
posted on April 19, 2002 06:30:31 PM new
daleeric, I am so disappointed that this is the outcome after you have had to deal with this for almost a whole year of your life. I feel sorry for you and it's totally unfair.
posted on April 19, 2002 06:34:17 PM new
daleeric, there must be a law that states if a judge ignores a basic rule of the law, then this was a mistrial. on people's court, judge milian states that if the check have that written and the other party cashes it, boom, nothing can change that, she said this is a simple law, and yet the judge you gotten overlooked it. Cant you go to another lower court to show thia elderly judge didnt bother to do his home work?
According to peoples court, this is a very basic evidence, yet your judge ignored it? take them to people's court, there is no way judge milian will side with those crooks. she is hispanic herself, and not only will she realize they cashed that check, BUT by saying they hate hispanic, she will TOTALLY be on your side, guaranteed!
posted on April 19, 2002 06:37:36 PM new
kiara, the sad thing is, this proves once again, the buyer is ALWAYS right in the eyes of the law, no matter if they commite fraud! thats half.com's attitude, and ebays is beginning to sink to half.com's mentality, and with the recession, you can bet more crooked bidders have things planned up their sleeves for small time sellers like us.
posted on April 19, 2002 07:00:32 PM new
Strangely enough, the bailiff (spelled right?) was hanging on us the whole time we were outside exchanging documents. I copied two sets of files for the buyers and court. The bailiff prevented me from giving the judge the copy that I made for him and insisted that I give my original copy. The judges copy had the auction text in full and a copy of the shippers website which shows they were in business for 40 years. I think being stopped from giving the judge his copy of the file could be a mistrial. I thought the bailiffs were hanging around us because the buyer had history of being a troublemaker. It was extremely odd. Never expected this.
posted on April 19, 2002 07:36:45 PM new
daleeric,
I am so very sorry. The judge is near retirement which could mean he has a dislike of modern things like internet sales. His attitude toward you shows a distinct bias. If you decide to contest this in some way, please let us know what happens. This is discouraging for all eBay sellers. On the other hand, I wouldn't blame you if you decided to move on and forget the whole thing.
lurking is not an option
posted on April 19, 2002 08:24:27 PM new
You can have an attorney write the court and ask that the judgement be set aside and ask for a new trial. After you tell your story to the attorney, he can properly word the request along with the reason. Your other option is to appeal the verdict to superior court. This can be tricky and you definitely need to consult an attorney for the proceedure. You don't necessarily have to have him represent you in court, but he needs to be the one to get it filed properly.
If you decide to accept the small claims verdict, don't send the jerk a dime. Make him come after it and earn every penny of it.
The light at the end of the tunnel will turn out to be an oncoming train.
posted on April 19, 2002 08:40:12 PM new
PECK,PECK,PECK,I WOULD JUST PECK ON WITH MY LIFE.
now this is behind you,go back and focus what you do best-sell antique furniture.
posted on April 19, 2002 09:18:36 PM new
>According to peoples court, this is a very basic evidence, yet your judge ignored it?
It's not conclusive evidence in all jurisdictions, and the Peoples' Court is hardly a quotable legal authority. The recipient of the check crossed out the disclaimer, signifying that he did not agree that it was payment in full. He didn't agree with the new "contract" purportedly formed by the check, therefore there was NO contract formation--as determined by the judge. Had he cashed the check without crossing out the terms, the verdict might have been different.
posted on April 19, 2002 09:22:24 PM new
Karen, when I was a witness in a small claims case in my area the judge specifically asked if a check that someone received said "paid in full" on the check. That would mean that is the terms of payment the check; my letter said the same thing.
[ edited by daleeric on Apr 19, 2002 09:24 PM ]
posted on April 20, 2002 01:38:48 AM new
Well watching all the judge shows, to me, it sounds like the judge you gotten had to be biased against you. I saw an episode of TEXDAS JUSTICE, where a single mother of 16 was suing the father of the baby, a 20 year old lazy bum, for money to help raise the kid. Had this been judge judy, judge hatchett, judge brown, judge mathis, she would have won, as I have seen girls in similar situation win on their show, but on TEXAS JUSTICE, judge larry joe, the minute the girl said "me and my mother are pro-choice, abortion is out of the question" when judge said couldnt you get a abortion, the judge snapped bqack at them saying "well thats the price you pay for being pro-choice!" and threw the case out! And watching this redneck judge, he seems to always go opposite to what the other judges do. I think you gotten a bad judge, who knows, maybe the crooks PAID him or the bailiff off. the way you describe the way baliff tricked you, sounds like a scam to me.
posted on April 20, 2002 05:28:00 AM new
Daleeric,
What a travesty of justice. I can't believe you lost. It sounds like the judge was a complete jacka**. I wonder how much more proof you would have needed in order to win.
I hope you decide to appeal the verdict, but if you do not I could understand why.
This case has taken up the last year of your life and probably caused so much stress in your life. I could see why you would also choose just to pay the goofball customer his verdict and move on.
posted on April 20, 2002 06:36:57 AM new
This judgement sets a very bad precedent for all E-Bay Sellers. If I did my best with three attempts to deliver this item and my husband offered to assemble it free and that was refused by the client, what more could I have done? I contacted the ACLU the Mexican American Defense League and though they said they found the situation disturbing they didn't have the manpower to help. I am wondering if it pays to be in business at this point, too much liability. I was just asked to be a Powerseller the day after the hearing and was excited about it.
posted on April 20, 2002 11:00:52 AM new
>the judge specifically asked if a check that someone received said "paid in full" on
> the check. That would mean that is the terms of payment the check; my letter said
> the same thing.
If the maker of a check writes "payment in full" on the check, and the payee cashes the check with that statement intact, the payee agrees to the terms of the "contract" formed by the check and that's that--even if the payee doesn't realize he was agreeing to the terms and actually disagrees with same.
Your payee was savvy enough to indicate his disagreement with the terms of the "contract" by crossing out the terms he didn't like, hence, no contract was formed by the payee's acceptance of the check. No agreement on terms = no contract, but the lack of agreement MUST be indicated.
Personally, I don't think the check-contract should have been the contract that ruled the transaction--rather the judge should have looked at the original contract of sale (the eBay agreement) which the erstwhile buyer breached when he refused delivery.
Was this a "real" judge, or some attorney they pulled out of the pool to sit in small claims for the day? He obviously has little background in contracts.
[ edited by KarenMx on Apr 20, 2002 11:03 AM ]
posted on April 20, 2002 02:15:27 PM new
I thought the idea was they could accept the amount we issued for the refund and cash the check or not cash the check and go for a full refund in court. That was what I was told by a friend that is a paralegal. So much for that idea.<br><br>
I don't know what evidence this guy had-it was just his say so over my stack of papers that would choke a horse and the signed notarized declaration of the operations manager who is the supervisor of the drivers. When they could not deliver the item, they reported to him by phone and we were in a three way conversation.<br><br>
The judge seems like the number confused him and was so concentrated on getting the amounts right to the exact penny that he seems annoyed when we talked and interruped his addition. If OJ could walk, I wonder why we are surprised.<br><br>
The moral of the story is to have insurance and cover your a** with terms of sale. I will not even offer assembly as a service of the shipper anymore-that is what got me into all this trouble in the first place! Should I even help to arrange for shipping at all? Or is it too much of a liability?????!!!!!
posted on April 20, 2002 04:19:11 PM new
hello, can someone put this in an executive summary??
ebay seller shipped armoire,buyer husband did not like the hispanic delivery men and refused the shipment.
seller offered to ship again and offer her husband to come along and put together the armoire.
then buyer husband said ??,and then there was lawsuit and counter lawsuit.
so how did seller end up writing a check with payment in full on the check written to the buyer??
is this a setup ??? the intention of the buyer is not to buy armoire but to sue someone??
living in a house with gated entrance and guard dog??
and cashing the check after crossing out the words payment in full>>
posted on April 20, 2002 05:56:39 PM new
That about sums it up. However, you forgot about the buyers request for $160 to be Fed Exed to him by the delivery date or he would refuse delivery again. According to the written judgement, that was our fatal mistake.<br>
The judge believes that we should have sent the $160 for his local cabinetmaker to assemble the armoire. However, faith had been broken at that point and I had no confidence that they would accept delivery. The request seemed to smell of extortion and they had already refused delivery twice and refused my husbands offer of assembly which was free. How many attempts do you have to make at delivery before you meet your obligation as a seller?
posted on April 20, 2002 07:01:28 PM new
i am still missing something here-you sent him a check for 160 so he can have his own cabinet maker put together the armoire??
is this the check which said payment in full?
then what happens??
why cant the check be delivered by your delivery man when the armoire showed up??
did you check up on him to see what kind of reputation he has??
no name,but there is a ebay bidder who do a lot of bidding on big and small items and i often wonder where all that money come from?it turns out that he got some of that by suing his own lawyer who represented him in his divorce case,now he is into suing someone else.
there are people who do this for profit.
This topic is 13 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new12new13new
