your comment(knowledgeable ones pls) pls. with transaction records through sms and/or CS private messages, if one party decides to bring the case to small claims tribunal with such records of transactions, is it acceptable to them?
ernest_ted said:iirc small claims tribunal is for non payment cases. i do not think it applies to Csers who bidded successfully B&S prices and does not turn up.
reachme2003 said:having bidded successfully and not fulfilling the financial obligation, as a result of, is an instance of 'non-payment' cases. right?
reachme2003 said:your comment(knowledgeable ones pls) pls. with transaction records through sms and/or CS private messages, if one party decides to bring the case to small claims tribunal with such records of transactions, is it acceptable to them?
ernest_ted said:iirc small claims tribunal is for non payment cases. i do not think it applies to Csers who bidded successfully B&S prices and does not turn up.
reachme2003 said:having bidded successfully and not fulfilling the financial obligation, as a result of, is an instance of 'non-payment' cases. right?
Ren_Hao said:I am not sure what iirc means but..................................
.
Ren_Hao said:Though I am not a legal professional, this is at least what I know of contract law.
Stating that the actual sale is subjected to review up front will effectly mean that is a "condition" of sales. Hence, the buyer or seller may refuse to sell if a reasonable reason is given.
However, there are several factors that should be considered. Was there "consideration". Since the seller is parting with his good and the buyer is willing to part with this money, than there is consideration. Regardless if the "consideration" is adaquate. Even if I am going to offer S$1 for a 600mm lens, it is still consideration.
Next is the intention to create a "legal" relationship. A buyer and seller relationship should be a legal relationship already, where the ownership of items is exchanged.
Next we would need to look into wether the seller was putting up an "offer" to sell or "an invitation to treat". If it is an "offer" to sell, than with the above 2 condition satisfied, than the buyer, on the surface of things, is legally binded to sell. If it was "an invitation to treat", than the seller is not obliged to sell even if a buyer takes up the "invitation".
How to differentiate an 'invitation to treat' or 'offer', we would need to consult a lawyer.
And I would think that the law of contract does apply to B&S in CS.
ernest_ted said:Things that are displyed on shelves on supermarket with price tag ==> invitation to treat not an offer.
When u put the item in your trolley does not mean u have accepted the offer.
Only that the check out when u pay, u have accepted the offer.
reachme2003 said:having bidded successfully and not fulfilling the financial obligation, as a result of, is an instance of 'non-payment' cases. right?
Ren_Hao said:I would think that it would depend on the nature of the auction. If it is a offer, an invitation to treat or others. If it is not an offer, than even if you have won the bid, there may not be any legal obligation. Though there might be a "moral" obligation.
PS, just personal views.
ernest_ted said:Things that are displyed on shelves on supermarket with price tag ==> invitation to treat not an offer.
When u put the item in your trolley does not mean u have accepted the offer.
Only at the check out when u pay, u have accepted the offer.
Am i right....gee...contract law classes were many moons ago..:sweatsm: