posted on January 25, 2001 07:32:36 PM
cix ~ I'm afraid I'd have to guess I was looking at an auction for a 35" remote. Course that might not be a bad thing.. cause it'd be darn hard to misplace it
posted on January 25, 2001 07:34:06 PM
Rosie, you post and Meya's make perfect sense to me, what doesn't make sense is what you are implying when you say reread the post.
posted on January 25, 2001 07:40:10 PM
Happily, my current Profession outside of Ebay is that of a "Mom" who tries to teach her kids to do the right thing.
[ edited by sophie89 on Jan 25, 2001 07:43 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2001 07:40:14 PM
Rosie as far as your dig at sophie89, I would MUCH rather deal with a person in any profession with compassion and concern for their fellow man than some Nazi who insists on following the rules no matter who gets hurt in the process, wouldn't, you?
nevermind dumb question.
You may now respond with another comment regarding my taxes.
posted on January 25, 2001 07:44:31 PM
cmbtboots ~ ok, back up. Meya's post stated that ebay didn't mind if people emailed other's bidders as long as the person doing the emailing had nothing to gain.
I stated, if this is true then why did people hide behind fake email addresses when doing this vary deed? And then I dared her to do this w/out the use of an alias.. and to CC safeharbor on every interference email she wrote *I already know the answer to this equation, I was, in essence, attempting to force Meya to either prove her point, or admit that her point was incorrect*
You then, come forward and tell me that people email from alias email addys so they don't get in trouble.
This is where, your statement, made no sense.. as I believe, the dare I mentioned, in my post.. made clear exactly where ebay stood. This is why I requested that you re-read both post, carefully.
Many of your comments are personally insulting and borderline breaching the Community Guidelines.
Please stick to the subject.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Joice
Moderator.
Edited to add that this post is meant for those that are addressing each other rather than the subject and is not singling out any one particular poster.
posted on January 25, 2001 07:51:21 PM
I have to agree with Rosie.
Yes, it's terrible that some person is getting ripped off. It's horrible that this seller is unscrupulous and preyed on people with a very deceptive ad.
However, there are channels one can take to point this out and that is notifying Safeharbor. Other than that, there's really nothing you can do. If dozens of people on this board notified safeharbor and timesensitive, they would more than likely cancel the auctions. Then no one would get ripped off and the rules of ebay would have been followed by all involved.
Again, these types of auctions are deplorable but ebaY should handle it.
posted on January 25, 2001 08:02:51 PM
sophie89 ~ even as "MOM" there are times when decisions must be made.. legal over moral. Choose wisely, because if you choose wrong it's more than just an auction on the line.
cmbtboots ~ that wasn't a dig at sophie89.. it was the cold hard facts. You want to deal with someone who has compassion rather than "follow the letter of the law" person.. correct? You better hope that the professional with compassion follows that letter of the law. To you it may seem like Nazi Germany, but to me it's called ethics:
Clergy hearing a confession ~ by law can not divulge who did what to whom to the police or any other agency.
Attorney, hearing his clients true confession ~ attorney client privledge. As long as you've retained this attorney, s/he can NEVER divulge what you have told him.
Psychologist (or any of the other psych doctors): Anything you tell them is held in confidence. I believe (????) that it takes a court order to release the psych's records. (course that may only be if you're dead that they'll be released).
You better HOPE that any all these compassionate people are ETHICAL enough to uphold the LAW and not spill the beans to the law, your husband, your wife, etc.. that you're a cross dresser, lesbain, bi-sexual, had an affair, your child really isn't your husbands........... or even worse.
Remember, if they do.. then they are only fulfilling their MORAL responsibility and they did it out of compassion for the person that you are hurting. But if they do turn you in than you can NOT hold it against them.. because otherwise they are nothing better than some strict rule following person. (last word edited before posting, but you know what I mean)
comment: the examples I use above are not meant towards any one person and are only meant as mild examples .. rather than extreme examples of what these professionals can and do deal with
with that edit.. G'night
[ edited by rosiebud on Jan 25, 2001 08:08 PM ]
posted on January 25, 2001 08:51:22 PM
I contacted the buyer and seller in this particular auction and invited them here.
The buyer emailed me and said ebay and paypal haven't done anything about this case (but just now the seller got suspended). He said, "This punk got away with our money, so be it." He's not taking it that hard apparently. I'd be writing 20/20 and start getting national press if I was him.
posted on January 25, 2001 09:15:12 PM
Rosie--what a pile of bloviating piffle!!!
Don't compare Apples with Dog Turds. We are not lawyers, doctors or clergymen with the obligation to keep freely given information confidential for our clients, parish, patients etc.
Ebays 'rules' which I normally follow are not some new set of holy commandments that will send me to hell if they are not followed to the letter.
Do I like Netcops?? No..I don't.
Do I like people who word their auctions with the intent to take your money and give you NOTHING?? HELL NO !! Let them burn instead.
and I refuse to believe that a court of law would side with the seller in any of these auctions---by accepting $400+ for an empty box than normally sells for $400+ when it is full--is all evidence necessary for a judgement of Fraud in my non-legal opinion.
posted on January 25, 2001 10:06:41 PM
I once had a valuable item up for auction but felt I had missworded the listing so I made another auction with a link. Can you believe I had 5 bids and it got upto OVER US$100. Tis is an exact copy without some of the HTML. I ended up canceling all bids & stoping the 2nd Auction.
-------------------------------------------
This auction is only for a printed copy of my auction listing for item 425556979.
<br>If you want to bid on the actual item then <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=425556979"> CLICK HERE!</a>.
<br>I forgot to put the word 'Royal' in the first item description.
<p><b><font color="green"> Delivery by Airmail </font></b> To;
<br>U.S.A.$40.00
<br>U.K.$46.00
<br>AUSTRALIA.$22.00
<b><font color="green">Payment;</font></b>
<br><font color="red"> Cash </font>, suggest by registered mail. In US$ only <font size =-1> (for immediate postage). </font>
<br><b> If you feel a burning desire to bid on this auction, take note,
<b> you will only be biding on a print, and you will need to pay the postage as well.</b>
posted on January 25, 2001 10:49:12 PM
What ZAZZIE said!
I noticed that one of the box sellers accepts Paypal. Say the high bidder paid via Paypal, can't they raise the issue with them and request a charge back?
posted on January 26, 2001 01:44:48 AM
I tend to be one of those free-thinking people who likes the structure of law, but recognise that it sometimes does not respond swiftly enough to new situations. This is simply the reality of creating law and rules... that in order to be good law it needs to accord with a range of situations.
Ebay's rules and reactions clearly do not ALWAYS meet the need for timeliness or appropriateness to new situations.
Yes, we can all report offending auctions to Ebay, in the hope that they get ended before someone gets ripped off. But what of sellers who become NARU, but some auctions have ended with a high bidder?
Does Ebay tell the bidder that the seller is now NARU? Does it tell them the implications of the seller being NARU? Is the bidder still covered by Ebay's "insurance"? Is Ebay going to tell bidders that they don't have to pay for the bloody empty box?
As far as I know, they don't. Even if you follow all the RULES, there is still someone here who is going to lose out - in money, in time, in worry.
Am I going to sit on the sidelines, if I can at least tell people to beware, to give them the additional information that they may lack? Nope.
Same as I felt it was important enough to break the law to protest against nuclear weapons - because the law-makers and politicians were not reponsive enough public concern. I choose my line, and I live with it. I don't criticise others for not wanting to follow my line, but I sure as hell demand the same respect. I am not some mindless law-breaker, I consider laws very carefully and work to have them changed where I can and take action where I must.
posted on January 26, 2001 03:54:05 AM
Just to clarify what I said and what I meant in my post about the Letter and the Spirit of the law.
I didn't say that eBay didn't mind about this type of auction "interference". I said there shouldn't be a problem with it. eBay in all of their twisted wisdom would most likely take issue with even this type of contact from a member, even if they themselves had nothing to gain.
While I understand the need for regulations and rules, and the need to agree to follow them, I don't feel morally bound to uphold the letter of the law in this particular case. My conscience is clear, there is no motive of gain or personal agenda. This isn't the same as playing Net Cop at all.
posted on January 26, 2001 06:33:59 AM
As always, it would be interesting to hear from some legal professionals about "who was wrong" in this case. Statements like "the seller (buyer) did nothing wrong" need to be backed up with a good legal analysis.
For example, a contract isn't enforceable unless there is a "meeting of the minds" about what was supposed to happen. At the very least, a court might order the seller to return the money (and the buyer to return the oh-so-valuable "box and receipt" ) in this case, since clearly there was no such meeting, whether due to intentional deception or otherwise.
Or they might find that the seller did, in fact, violate state and federal laws on fraud, misrepresentation, etc. One good thing about our courts is that they will look at all the circumstances and render a decision. If the seller claimed "Look, there aren't any commas" and called a host of English Professor witnesses to confirm that "technically" the wording didn't promise an actual PSX, it might fall on deaf ears when surrounded by all the other evidence (the category, similar auctions, etc).
By the way, I, too, would seriously question the use of the word "illegal" when applied to "breaking" ebay's administrative rules. As an example, I was driving once with my sister, who is an attorney. I had to make a u-turn, so I pulled into a store's parking lot, going *in* the "out" exit (the store was closed at the time, so there wasn't a safety issue). I made a comment about hoping the police weren't watching, and my sister observed that store rules (the "out" sign) weren't laws, so what I didn't wasn't illegal.
And just to weigh in with my own personal opinion, would I let ebay's vague "rules" on auction interference (combined, of course, with their haphazard Safeharbor organization) stop me from attempting to prevent someone who was clearly in danger of being ripped off for hundreds of dollars? Not a chance. I'd gladly email the potential sellers in a minute (and be willing to suffer punishment if ebay did object). Life is full of choices, and I think this is a no-brainer. And I've done this before. Blindly sticking to one set of "the rules" (and thus ignoring any personal code of morality, which in my mind is another set of "rules" with just as much validity) isn't my style.
[ edited by captainkirk on Jan 26, 2001 06:35 AM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 06:59:51 AM
There was no misrepresentation whatsoever in this auction. The seller clearly was selling a box and a receipt. If the bidder was dimwitted enough not to understand the (very clearly worded) description, he should have emailed and asked for clarification. If a seller delivers EXACTLY what was offered for sale in the listing and delivers it to the buyer, there can be no fraud. The seller has a legal obligation to deliver the goods as described. He does NOT have an obligation to hold the bidder's hand to make sure that an idiot doesn't get burned because he reads something into a listing that simply isn't there (the PS2 console).
posted on January 26, 2001 07:07:46 AM
That auction should have clearly CLEARLY stated that it was for the box only. I've seen people selling Strawberry Shortcake Doll boxes only. They are valuable because they are hard to come by these days. With the doll in it it is even more valuable. But without the doll the auctions have all stated "You are bidding on the BOX ONLY". It's a seller's responsiblity (IMHO) to make sure the buyer knows what they are getting.
Maybe it's the seller who has a conscience to make sure the buyer knows what they are getting. I never in a million years would dream of doing that to someone and then calling them a liar on top of it.
