Libraries selling withdrawn books on TradeMe
Purpose – Some public libraries have experimented with selling withdrawn books via online auction sites, but there has been little exchange of information about the benefits of this and whether it is a practice other libraries could follow. This paper aims to address this issue.Design/methodology/approach – Original data are collected through interviews with six practitioners.Findings – All libraries were using TradeMe for opportunistic reasons. They had withdrawn books to sell and hoped that a national market would realise better prices than in‐house sales. Although prices were usually better, not all books sold and the staff costs were often higher than the revenues brought in.Research limitations/implications – The research is limited to six public libraries in New Zealand.Practical implications – Library managers learn from experience that they can generate some revenue by selling withdrawn books through online auction sites, but only if staff costs are kept down. Partnerships with dealers or interest...
Web booksellers—their usefulness to libraries
Abstract Historically, libraries have purchased most of their books from wholesalers catering to the library market. In the past five years, new web booksellers have entered the marketing offering deep discounts and rapid delivery to the general public. Purchasing from web vendors tends to increase library administrative costs because of institutional credit card and auditing policies, double data entry on the web vendor’s interface and local library system, and other factors. Depending on local administrative costs, libraries may find web vendors the best choice for purchasing OP, foreign and rush titles.
The Impact of EU Unfair Contract Terms Law on U.S. Business-to-Consumer Internet Merchants
When the Court of Appeals for Versailles issued its decision in AOL France v. UFC Que Choisir2 in September 2005, it sent the message to U.S. Internet businesses that even contractual boilerplate localized for European markets may be invalid in European consumer transactions. In that case, a French consumer advocacy group challenged the terms AOL offered its French customers after AOL had made extensive revisions to its standard form contracts to respond to the concerns regarding those terms expressed in an advisory opinion by a French consumer protection agency. In 2004, a trial court invalidated nearly every term in the revised agreement; the appeals court affirmed on all counts. Subsequently, in July 2006 following concerns raised by the Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”), a United Kingdom government agency charged with “making sure markets work well for consumers,”3 Dell Corporation Limited changed its online terms and conditions to make them fairer to consumers.4 European consumer contract law had an impact in both cases. At issue for AOL France and Dell Corporation Limited was the application of France’s and the UK’s consumer contract law which is based on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive of 19945 and calls into question the validity of many of the terms that U.S. courts routinely enforce in transactions involving American consumers and merchants.