Stuck with a busted motor, Islander's suit without merit, Civil Court rules.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- People buy and sell automobile engines on eBay -- who knew? -- and, like in the brick-and-mortar world, sometimes the darn things just won't go.

In a case that apparently sets precedent in New York, a Staten Island judge has thrown out a Concord man's lawsuit seeking damages for a bum engine he bought on eBay from an out-of-state seller.

Masood H. Sayeedi felt the sting of the age-old admonition, "caveat emptor," or "buyer, beware!" after Civil Court Judge Philip S. Straniere ruled that the New York Civil Court Act's "long-arm" statute did not reach far enough in this case.

Sayeedi was looking to recoup $2,000 in damages from Missouri resident Timothy Walser, who, Sayeedi alleges, sold him a defective Chevy hi-nickel 350 HP engine that was billed to be in "new" condition and "fresh from the shop."

Straniere ruled the statute did not apply because essentially Walser sold the engine on eBay to the highest bidder, and was not targeting a New York buyer.

According to court documents, Sayeedi won the auction and bought the engine for $1,444 in January 2006. Afterward, he took it to a Jamaica, Queens, auto body shop and paid $1,150 for repairs. The mechanic's report, which referred to a 1983 Pontiac Trans Am and a Chevy 350 hi-nickel engine, said the motor was "no good," the connecting rod was broken and the cam shaft was damaged.

Sayee filed suit against Walser in Civil Court, West Brighton, alleging breach of contact. Walser did not bother to respond.

Sayeedi, 60, obviously was "not happy" with the ruling.

"I'm not satisfied with it," he said. "The decision is not fair. There has to be some kind of remedy. I paid almost $2,000" for the engine.

Nichola Sharpe, an eBay spokeswoman, said the majority of transactions occur "without problem"; however, she could not say how many deals end in dispute.

Straniere said there were a number of problems with Sayeedi's suit.

Among them were his failure to provide the full eBay auction contract, a guarantee for the engine, or proof that it had been tested immediately upon delivery from Walser. Also, there was no indication on the repair shop statement that the business was properly licensed as required by state law.

Regarding jurisdiction, Straniere noted that the state Court of Appeals has held, more than once, that the "mere shipment" of goods into New York does not qualify as a sole basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over a defendant.

"The defendant was prepared to sell his Chevrolet engine to whoever the highest bidder happened to be, regardless of the state in which they happened to reside," wrote Straniere, who was assisted by Dongan Hills resident Justin Gunnell, a Cornell University School of Law student, in researching and preparing the opinion.

"In the typical online auction sale, the ultimate destination of any item is completely determined by the potential buyers through the bidding process," the judge said.

As to why anyone would buy something like an automobile engine sight unseen over the Internet, a knowledgeable person said there's a lively trade in "uncracked blocks," which are much less expensive at auction.

Freight companies deliver the weighty engines, she said.

Source: Here

I read this carefully and personally feel the buyer should be rewarded with some sort of reimbusement IMHO. The buyer was scammed into thinging this engine he'd purchased was new, when in fact it was not new and defective.

"HP engine that was billed to be in "new" condition and "fresh from the shop."

And as usual, ebay has washed their hands in the matter. They didn't want to loose their FVF!

I personally would not have spent this much $$ on any online auction site but it happens everyday.

Now this buyer will spread the word as to how he was ripped off on ebay.

Elgato - I tend to agree with you in theory ... here's where I believe the court has 'tied hands' - it would or might come down to he said/she said - only in so much as how the seller describes it when it left and how the buyer describes it when it arrived.

I've got a friend who was selling antique clocks. Long story short, customer purchased and wanted to return. She did allow returns - in her T&Cs...

However - when it came back, she took a look at it, and it 'looked sort of the same'. She took it to an expert, and the buyer had replaced some pieces with 'replica' elements. Thus - buyer took what he wanted, replaced with other, devalued the clock from it's original state - and how do you prove it?

I agree - high $$ items - no way - I so want to 'see' it and 'touch it' - ya know? I do feel for the buyer tho!