Ebay spared fake goods liability

[3748 Hussar]

Hi All ,

Looks like the European union is having a change of heart with regards selling fakes on E- bay . See Link old link. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8f7a9832-4...#axzz1RrpdXEor

Will it affect the collecting market ? I hope so.

Regards

3748 Hussar

[wright241]

Tony, Thanks for posting.
Excellent news for the make-up industry. Not so sure that it will go beyond branded goods though..... or the dodgy militaria sellers/dealers.
Even more income for the legal profession and the ever blossoming sue culture.
What ever happened to good old decency and taking responsibility for ones actions?
I definitely chose the wrong career, good job its coming to an end.
I was advised (when I was around 16) that Banking and Law were the ones to go for to make money. These days, it looks like that advice was the one - had I been that way (morally) inclined......
All the best.

[btns]

Ebay is going to solve this without hiring extra staff ..
The easiest way out is to ban the sale of badges in Europe.

They know how to block items from Europe being displayed on the US site.
"This item is not available in this country".

[CftD]

Ebay liability was never on the cards ! If you check each and every listing on Ebay, there is a clear statement 'the seller accepts liability for this item' and that is all Ebay - as mere agents in the transaction - need do to avoid legal liability in both the criminal and civil law. When we buy or sell a house, do we consider the estate agent liable should anything turn out to be defective ? Of course we don't - we hold the seller/buyer liable and, in turn, their respective lawyers. An estate agent, like Ebay operates under agency law which, essentially, keeps them out of the legal framework. Had Ebay been found liable it would have flown in the face of established agency law. David

[btns]

Dear David,
A company may state "we are just a venue", but it is up to the courts to decide.

This link goes to a BBC news statement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14127465

[CftD]

Originally Posted by btns

Dear David,
A company may state "we are just a venue", but it is up to the courts to decide.

This link goes to a BBC news statement:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14127465

With respect, the courts HAVE decided ! David

[btns]

ebay:
"As a marketplace, eBay provides a level playing field for all online sellers and will continue building constructive partnerships to expand the range of brands being sold on eBay."
Note that private sellers are not included in "level playing field", but that doesn't matter here.

the UK High Court:
The High Court asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify the obligations of internet marketplaces under EU law.

European Court of Justice
.. it also said that companies such as eBay were deemed to play an "active role" for instance by "optimising the presentation of the online offers for sale or promoting those offers".
..
"When the operator has played an 'active role' of that kind, it cannot rely on the exemption from liability which EU law confers, under certain conditions, on online service providers such as operators of internet marketplaces," the court said

David, as a lawyer: Does "Best Match" qualify for playing an "active role"?

[Dwayne H]

Ebay probably makes more money than all of the EU anyways. Their legal department is likely the largest section in the company. I don't think Ebay is going to worry 1 euro's worth of time in this. It will be status quo.

Dwayne

[CftD]

Originally Posted by btns

ebay:
"As a marketplace, eBay provides a level playing field for all online sellers and will continue building constructive partnerships to expand the range of brands being sold on eBay."
Note that private sellers are not included in "level playing field", but that doesn't matter here.

the UK High Court:
The High Court asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify the obligations of internet marketplaces under EU law.

European Court of Justice
.. it also said that companies such as eBay were deemed to play an "active role" for instance by "optimising the presentation of the online offers for sale or promoting those offers".
..
"When the operator has played an 'active role' of that kind, it cannot rely on the exemption from liability which EU law confers, under certain conditions, on online service providers such as operators of internet marketplaces," the court said

David, as a lawyer: Does "Best Match" qualify for playing an "active role"?

Where does 'Best match' enter into this discussion ? David

[btns]

"Best Match" is Ebay's method to present preferred vendors - it is "optimising the presentation of the online offers for sale or promoting those offers".

[CftD]

Originally Posted by btns

"Best Match" is Ebay's method to present preferred vendors - it is "optimising the presentation of the online offers for sale or promoting those offers".

If their role is purely presentational then there is little difference with an estate agent preparing a glossy brochure to promote the sale of a property. Ebay is a sales agent - not a purchasing agent and their legal team have distanced the company adequately from the sales and purchases themselves. Would you expect a fair organiser to be liable for a transaction between a trader and purchaser simply because he created the environment where the transaction could take place ? I don't think so ! David

[Neil Pearce]

David. Your comparisons seem to always draw parallels to estate agents, which I can understand, to an extent. However, there is the issue of professional and government regulation.

The law of agency, and the ethics associated, are distinct. It is almost irrelevant in this case to quote agency law. You will no doubt understand my point, technicalities aside.

For example. I am in not protecting estate agents, but if someone sold me a house that was on top of a mine shaft, I would expect disclosure. If not, I would expect recompense from the agent. This ruling has no bearing on ethics, or otherwise

As several have rightly pointed out, this ruling will not help fake badge purchasers. Nor will it help anyone in particular, except (marginally) the owners of intellectual property.

End of discussion I think........

[CftD]

Originally Posted by Neil Pearce

David. Your comparisons seem to always draw parallels to estate agents, which I can understand, to an extent. However, there is the issue of professional and government regulation.

The law of agency, and the ethics associated, are distinct. It is almost irrelevant in this case to quote agency law. You will no doubt understand my point, technicalities aside.

For example. I am in not protecting estate agents, but if someone sold me a house that was on top of a mine shaft, I would expect disclosure. If not, I would expect recompense from the agent. This ruling has no bearing on ethics, or otherwise

As several have rightly pointed out, this ruling will not help fake badge purchasers. Nor will it help anyone in particular, except (marginally) the owners of intellectual property.

End of discussion I think........

Neil - Your illustration of the house on a mine shaft actually illustrates the point I made. Disclosure does not come from or even via the agent - it comes from the seller, either directly or via their solicitor. Liability for that disclosure is, therefore, with the seller. In turn, the seller relies upon his solicitor to carry out searches and disclose the results of those searches. Again, in turn, the buyer relies upon his solictor to carry out searches and the sum total of all searches are examined before contracts are signed and exchanged. In all of this the agent is nowhere to be seen - so where is his liability ? Ebay's defence was that they merely provide the arena in which the transaction can take place - that is agency - for which they take a fee. They will continue to evade liability no matter how hard we protest - that's the law ! David