I went back and re-read John Price's email.
First of all, I realize that his aunt apparently didn't know the guy who bought it at the garage sale, nor did she collect his name and number at the time of the garage sale - she located him through the eBay auction. So never mind what I said before about that. But, it sure looks like if the garage sale buyer hadn't offered it on eBay, the "heirloom" would have been gone without any chance of retrieval. John might not have found out about it being gone for weeks, months or even years, depending on when the next time was that he went down into his aunt's basement.
And secondly, my opinion that he unlawfully interfered with the eBay transaction is based on my assumption that the bike was never his, neither by gift nor by sale. John does not even claim that the bike had been promised to him by his aunt, or that he ever told his aunt that he wanted that bike whenever she was ready to let it go. There is no question, in my opinion, that the bike was the aunt's to sell, and I can't understand why the eBay seller agreed to return it to the aunt, since he was under no duty or obligation to so. The only duty he was under was to complete the eBay transaction and deliver the bike to the eBay buyer.
Anyway, I've heard through the grapevine that the eBay buyer is in fact very angry about not getting the bike he bought. I'd say he has every right to be. So no, he's not OK with this, like John claims.
Ray Dobbins Miami FL USA
Walter Nash <wbnash@msn.com> wrote: Joe, You are correct in your statements on a gift. My very general comment to the List assumed no valid gift.
Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Joseph Bender-Zanoni To: Raymond Dobbins Cc: Walter Nash ; classicrendezvous Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 5:48 AM Subject: Re: [CR]ebay outing: cool Masi
I'll have to chime in that a gift is analyzed differently than a sale. A gift needs to be accepted by the giftee and the giftor has to hand it over. The transfer of the property is an important part of the acceptance. Talk about an outright gift is not given the same weight as talk about a sale. John, despite his words, did not pick up (accept) the bike. Even analyzed as a sale, he owed it to his Aunt to remove the unwanted bike as his side of the transaction. Furthermore, attempts to analyze this deal under equity need to consider the delay (laches) on John's part, which means John would be very likely to lose. The moral of the story is that if someone gives you a bike, take it. Somehow I have never had a problem with gaining possession of a bike. Bike lust takes care of that.
Joe Bender-Zanoni Great Notch, NJ
Raymond Dobbins wrote:
> Further to what Walter said, and in response to what Mike Kone asked, the consideration given by the buyer in this case was his promise to complete the deal. That is enough - you do not have to pay 1$ to make a contract enforceable.
>
> Now a question for John Price, who I must say displays a startling aloofness to the ethical implications involved in his retrieval of the Masi heirloom": What kind of garage sales does your aunt hold? I've never heard of a garage sale where the seller collects the name and number of the buyers. Or was your aunt already familiar with the person who bought the bike at her "garage sale?" Did the garage sale buyer return the Masi for the same price he bought it? If so, I can only assume he was a personal friend of yours or your aunt's." But if not...if he received more than what he paid for the bike at the "garage sale," I have to mention the term "unlawful interference."
>
> In any event, John, I hope you realize that your story clearly shows that you subverted a binding contract between the eBay buyer and seller, only to satisfy your fortuitous and belated realization (thanks only to the CR posts, not your own interest in the bike while it was in your aunt's possesion), that your aunt's Masi (not yours) was valuable. Your gloss-over that the eBay buyer is OK with this due to the circumstances, simply does not ring true. I am sure the eBay buyer is fairly upset at the eBay seller - and you as well, now that you outed yourself as the saboteur of the transaction. I do not know the eBay buyer, and I am not sure if he is a current CR member, but I believe several CR members know him, so I'm sure we will hear about his side of the story soon.
>
> In conclusion, I have to say that I am flabbergasted that you told us about what you did.
>
> Ray Dobbins
> Miami FL USA
>
>
>
> Walter Nash <wbnash@msn.com> wrote:
> The buyer would have had an enforceable contract when he accepted the
> buy it now offer prior to paying money. He could have sued for what we
> call "specific performance" and gotten the bike had he chosen to do so.
>
> Walter 'a lawyer" Nash
> Tucson AZ USA
>
> Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:57:58 +0000
> From: hersefan@comcast.net
> To: Thomas Adams >,
> classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
> Subject: Re: [CR]ebay outing: cool Masi
> Message-ID:
> <033020072257.2248.460D95F600032AF7000008C82200734830020E000A9C9D0A08@com
> cast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Precedence: list
> Message: 2
>
> Are ebay contracts really contracts? Ebay says up and down they are,
> but my limited understanding of the legal world tells me that for a
> contract to be enforcible, the buyer must have given consideration (i.e.
> that $1 bill again) - and unless the buyer actually had paid the money,
> than there really isn't any consideration and therefore its not a true
> legal contract.
>
> Can those unlike myself who may really know what they are talking about
> add their input?
>
> Mike "not a lawyer" Kone in Boulder CO