Muppet on eBay

[Softus]

Best stop now

I'll stop, or continue, when I want to stop, or continue.

as you always start to bluster or make accusations when in the wrong

Please show me where I've blustered or made a wrong accusation, or indeed posted anything that is factually wrong, or indeed an opinion that I've pretended is something other than an opinion.

Why a busybody just because I'm attempting to clarify the origin of your statement?

If you want to present an opinion, then go ahead - I'm not interfering with you doing that. What makes your particular style of presentation anti-social is you re-presenting what I've written with a caveat attached. A caveat that is (a) irrelevant and (b) entirely your conjecture.

If you want to know the origin of something, then ask about the origin. You could even go away and read about it if you don't know enough about the subject yourself.

Contract Law is very straightforward

Oh, really?

I'm sure many a barrister would beg to differ ... My brother and father-in-law being 2 to begin with

Oh how very amusing. I await their posts.

So ... You ARE a member of the legal profession?

I neither claim it nor deny it. Whether I am or not is none of your business. Equally, I have no interest in asking you for the kind of personal or professional information about yourself that you seem to have started to vomit up all over this topic.

The information I posted is either wrong, or it is correct. You don't seem to know which it is, so it would be better if you got your brother to step in.

 

[megawatt]

As I predicted ... Verbal Diarrhea Softus style

Carry on, give everyone a laugh.

At least you're consistent.

The information I posted is either wrong, or it is correct. You don't seem to know which it is, so it would be better if you got your brother to step in.

Couldn't we save everyone a lot of time by only posting facts we are sure are correct? I'll assume it's wrong for now then ... Just to be on the safe side ... A plumber giving legal advice ... Priceless.

My brother has seen many of your posts Softus and he thinks you are good entertainment value ... Hasn't commented on the accuracy of anything you've said though because, strangely enough ... He's not a plumber

Edited for typos

 

[billyo]

maybe then tap has run dry on this subject

 

[Softus]

As I predicted ... Verbal Diarrhea Softus style

I'm just answering the points that you've put to me. I note that you haven't addressed any of the points, or questions, I've put to you, but just levelled further accusations.

Carry on, give everyone a laugh.

If you're all happy then I'm happy.

At least you're consistent.

Dolphin.

The information I posted is either wrong, or it is correct. You don't seem to know which it is, so it would be better if you got your brother to step in.

Couldn't we save eveyone a lot of time by only posting facts we are sure are correct?

Yes - that's exactly what I've done, and exactly what you haven't done. Feel free to point out anything I've posted that you find to be wrong. I'll happily retract it, and, if necessary, apologise.

I'll assume it's wrong for now then ... Just to be on the safe side ... A plumber giving legal advice ... Priceless.

And yet not as priceless as a fool who makes assumptions. Mind out that your blind prejudice doesn't trip you up there.

My brother has seen many of your posts Softus and he thinks you are good entertainment value

I didn't know that my audience included your brother, so that's very interesting.

... Hasn't commented on the accuracy of anything you've said though because, stangely enough ... He's not a plumber

You don't have to be anything to comment on accuracy of information. You either know it's right, or know it's wrong, or, as in your case, don't have a clue.

 

[Thermo]

could be a barrister with the length of the replies!

 

[Softus]

If you believe that I've interpreted the law incorrectly, then please tell me.

I wouldn't know if you've interpreted the law correctly

________________________

Please show me where I've blustered or made a wrong accusation, or indeed posted anything that is factually wrong, or indeed an opinion that I've pretended is something other than an opinion.

________________________

If you want to know the origin of something, then ask about the origin.

________________________

I note that you haven't addressed any of the points, or questions, I've put to you, but just levelled further accusations.

________________________

Feel free to point out anything I've posted that you find to be wrong. I'll happily retract it, and, if necessary, apologise.

 

[esra_ptrap]

Don't waste your time MW the man's a fool

 

[wanabechippie]

Are you one of those gullible people who are duped by the eBay 'statement' that the winning of an auction constitutes the forming of a contract?

Sale of Goods:

"A contract by which a seller transfers or agrees to transfer the ownership of goods to a buyer in exchange for a money price. The contract need not be in writing"
- Oxford Dictionary of law (2002:444). Blackwell, Clarke, Everett et al.

 

[megawatt]

I think we've already established that Softus isn't a legal eagle (or probably not even a legal budgie )

I wouldn't go as far as esra_ptrap though as he sometimes writes well considered posts.

On the odd occasion someone points out something he doesn't like, though, he does tend to go into this spiral of accusation, diatribes intended to lose the point and general babble rather than simply accept the observation in the spirit it was made ...

In this case, that contract law is (to the majority IMHO), generally considered a legal minefield and if he is to make statements about what courts can and cannot do in this area then it would be sensible to explain the context in which they are made

i.e. Made by a plumber just because he thinks it is so or made by a plumber following something he's read/googled or made by a plumber following advice by a legal mate down the pub whilst ****ed etc.

I'm sure Softus will have some long winded farce to follow this if he is to remain to type.

Ho hum

 

[Softus]

Nothing long winded is needed - the main point is that you continue to have no answer to the points I've made to you.

There have no accusations, and there's been no blustering, from me, just articulate and accurate points. You've written nothing that I don't like, because you've pointed out nothing of any substance.

I've been the one sticking to the point, whereas you've been distracting, and detracting, from it.

The context is clear and obvious - that of the eBay transaction mentioned by the OP.

Contract Law isn't a legal minefield; it's one of the most straightforward areas of English Law. Notwithstanding that, my statements are relevant only in the context of this topic, and I haven't made, and I'm not making, any claim of their applicability or validity elsewhere.

I note, not for the first time, that your only objection to what I've written is that it's me writing it - you have no comment to make on the content, and you're unable to point out any factual errors in it.

You're making an absolute pratt out of yourself - feel free to continue, since it's highly entertaining.

 

[megawatt]

You really are priceless ... A legend in your own mind.

Enough has been said, people can read and make up their own minds.

 

[Softus]

And anyone who can read can see that you've been capable of contributing very little on this topic other than personal and derogatory comments.

 

[ricicle]

You're making an absolute pratt out of yourself - feel free to continue, since it's highly entertaining.

I always thought 'prat' only had one 't' in it....?.....

 

[megawatt]

Oh, and I forgot the one important aspect of the Softus psyche ... He always likes the last word

 

[wanabechippie]

I'd have to say that I agree with El Softus on his point about Contract law being the most straight forward of the all the legal areas. That's not to say that it is straight forward (tis all relative), just the most logical and equitable. If 'A' happens, then 'B' or 'C' must follow...

In the case of the OP's eBay issue; the most likely equitable remedy that may be prescribed by a court (were it to come before a court) would only serve to return both parties to the state they were in before the contract was entered into. This would mean returning either goods or monies or both.

As neither goods nor monies have been exchanged, neither party has been injured so no case can realistically be brought.

As has been said, the only weapons at OP's disposal are negative feedback, a complaint to eBay and/or a listing on the eBay community's crappy sellers register (if it's still going).