Originally Posted by chrisd_b
No guys....small print does not come into this at all....
It surely does.
Consider if the eBay advert had no stipulation for receiving the deposit within a certain time. The seller at some point has to decide that an unreasonable amount of time has passed and place the car up for sale again, sells it, takes a deposit. But then the original buyer comes back with his deposit. the original buyer has broken no stipulations, so a contract exists between him and the seller for the purchase of the car.
Clearly this doesn't change the fact that Joe has a legal claim on the car, but it very definitely changes whether the original buyer has a legal claim. How do you decide whose claim is the stronger?
You could claim that the seller is contracted to supply each buyer with a GTA, but that is a sheer impossibility and helps out no-one.
Since there IS small print, and the first buyer demonstrably has NOT obeyed the terms of the contract, it is clear that Joe's claim is the stronger. Hence the small print has made a significant difference to the difficulty of sorting the issue out.