eBay user’s negative comment may cost him $15K

Steadman made the purchase in November 2008. But when he saw the shipped goods didn’t match the advertisement, he expressed an opinion about the South Florida lawyer who offered the item on the Internet: “Bad seller; he has the ethics of a used car salesman.”

That comment about the clock, which Steadman returned to Elliot Miller of Miami Beach, prompted a $15,000 defamation lawsuit. He said the lawsuit has cost him $7,000 in legal bills and his attorney quit because he could no longer afford to pay him.

This is just such a shinning example of why our whole “sue first ask questions later” society is screwing us all.  Or in better words, why those with money can rule those without in a slightly broken legal system.

On one side, we have a lawyer, who can more or less represent himself for free.  On the other, we have Joe Schmoe who wants a new time for cheap.  In the middle, we have a more or less pointless lawsuit that really shouldn’t have even gone to any sort of expensive trial level.  The point of eBay’s feedback system is to give feedback on a seller.  In the past, sellers could return feedback to a buyer.  The problem was that some sellers would hold the feedback as a bargaining chip to get positive feedback.

Basically, flat out extortion.  buyers would be threatened with negative feedback, despite not doing anything wrong, if they left negative feedback on a seller.  There seems to be this mindset on eBay that any negative feedback, or for that matter, anything that’s not positive, is bad.  Even if you’ve for 500 responses and say, 2 are negative, there are many who consider those 2 just as bad as having 500 negatives.

Ebay changed this system however and removed the ability for a seller to feedback a buyer.  This lawyer had decided to take things to the next level and simply sue for defamation of character.  I imagine, on some technical level, the comment about “Ethics of a used car salesman” is not really related to the item so it could be construed as some form of libel, but somehow the idea of possible expected feedback on a seller’s conduct could cover that comment.

The problem is more in the fact that Mr Joe Schmoe Clock can’t afford to keep himself in court indefinitely fighting this case while Mr Rich Guy Lawyer can cover his own ass in his free time or whole he’s sitting on his ass on the toilet, for free.

Which leads to another issue…

Steadman said he tried to represent himself in court, but he didn’t understand the jargon or what documents to file. Late last year, he hired a lawyer using money he borrowed from a second mortgage he had taken out on his home three years ago to start the business.

The Jargon.  For whatever reason, likely mostly to keep the law business, in business, courts speak in lots of random obscure jargon.  Phrases that do make some sense but can be confusing and difficult to follow for someone who hasn’t had any experience reading through them.

So not only do we have a system meant to let whomever can throw the most money at the wall win their case, There’s generally little option for trying to “Do it yourself” and actually get anywhere.

There is also the subject of free speech on the internet but that’s better covered by an article all unto itself.