posted on January 26, 2001 07:24:25 AM new
dubya: "The seller clearly was selling a box and a receipt" and "there was no misrepresentation".
I sure hope that you ARENT the seller in this case, and that you aren't depending on that to keep you out of jail. The prisons are full of people who tried just such a tactic and got appropriately "rewarded" for it.
The law (justly) holds sellers to a higher level of competence than buyers. That ad was misleading, and the best a seller could hope for in a legal battle was an "offsetting penalties" decision (return the money, return the box). If they went in front of a "hanging judge" they might be rooming with Bubba for a year or two.
posted on January 26, 2001 07:55:29 AM new
This is sad - BUT exactly what I have seen for years, and that is that many buyers, neither read, nor comprehend what they are reading, regarding auction descriptions.
I belive this example should be a wakeup call to buyers, to READ the auction description, and "think" about what they are reading. It should also be a wake up call to such scams as this.
posted on January 26, 2001 07:57:02 AM newZazzie ~ what you stated is true. As far as I know, you're not an attorney, doctor, clergy, etc. But the point that you seem to be missing, is that someone stated:
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
I was pointing out that the "compassionate" professionals.. that I'm sure we all use at some point, better be the law abiding types who follow rules. I mean, you never know when one might take it upon themselves to act on their moral responsibility.
captainkirk ~ so, because it's not really a law, it's not illegal? This means there are no consequences for your actions and you don't really need to worry? I pull into a store parking lot and see a parking spot close to the door. It's reserved for the Employee of the month and all others will be towed at owners expense. I park in it anyway. It's not illegal because it's not "a law". But yet, if my car is towed, I'm responsible~ I've gotta pay to get my car out of impound.
The point is people, no matter how much you want to deny it, these are rules and regulations set forth by ebay. These rules are ebay's "laws". Like it or not.. that's what it is. You agreed to these rules/laws when you signed up. Not only 1 rule, but all of them. If you don't like it, either change it or go someplace else. When you break the rules, yet expect the rules to protect you..... that's hypocritical.
posted on January 26, 2001 08:03:56 AM new
I can't stay out of this one. IMHO,
The seller is guilty of an "intent to defraud" ~ this was clearly a pre-meditated auction designed to deceive. Relying on semantics! This was not a level playing field.
In society, it is our moral obligation to look out for the weak ~ in this case the newbie. Here is a bidder who spent hundreds of dollars ~ I would love to have someone with that kind of disposable income checking out my auctions. So maybe some of you turn your heads when a bully beats up some little kid (none of your business, right?) maybe you keep on walking (the kid must have asked for it, right?) or maybe some of you get the kid some help (someone should help the poor thing, right?) Then there are those of us who go the extra mile to STOP the fight. Given the choice, I'd prefer to be in a place where people look out for one another ~ whether it be through direct involvement or getting the proper authorities to take action.
Yes, Buyer Beware, but Seller be forthright.
kick the soapbox out from under me I'm outta here
chepistar
posted on January 26, 2001 08:14:44 AM new
No, I'm not the seller. And I do think that his intention was to mislead potential bidders. This seller is (just barely) one rung above Bill Clinton on the ethics ladder.
That having been said, I repeat: This seller sold EXACTLY what was stated in the item listing. Nothing more. Nothing less.
My opinions about the seller's motives are irrelevant here. The fact is he offered for auction a box and a receipt. As long as the box and receipt are delivered upon payment the bidder has no beef with the seller.
Let me ask a question here: How many among us would read that item listing and think we are bidding on a PS2 game console in addition to the box and receipt? Common sense would seem to dictate that there simply isn't enough information provided by the seller to make a decision about bidding or not bidding. Unless the potential bidder asks for clarification then his decision will be based solely upon the information in the auction listing. The auction listing is explicit. The auction is for a box and a receipt. Nothing else.
No doubt this seller is scum. But he offered at auction a box and a receipt. Very clearly. He didn't break the law.
well, if you are using the term "illegal" to mean "breaking ebay's internal administrative rules" then fine. However, most people generally use "illegal" to refer to not obeying the "law of the land", and ebay's rules AIN'T the "law of the land", quite obviously, so yes, I'm sticking with my "it isn't illegal" position. I just want to make sure people accord your terminology with the appropriate weight - these "illegal" actions that you are so upset about aren't even in the same class as what most people think of as "illegal", such as robbery, fraud, etc.
Also, your statement that "This means there are no consequences for your actions and you don't really need to worry?" is a silly response to my earlier post. I never said there weren't consequences; in fact I specifically mentioned consequences ("and be willing to suffer punishment if ebay did object" ). You may want to go back and re-read what I said more carefully.
posted on January 26, 2001 08:19:24 AM new
Thank you, chepistar. My feelings exactly.
If I see someone being abused, or whom I THINK is being abused, I speak up. It is not always an easy call, but I would rather be wrong with "rightness" in my heart and mind, than stand back with blinkered eyes and a closed mind.
I don't go around saying "Don't pay for that auction! They are rip-off merchants!", but rather suggest that the buyer may wish to look closer before making their decision. If that is "breaking the rules", then that is the way that it is.
As for the spurious comparison of this action with breaking the "rule" of parking in a designated parking place... For whose benefit was the breaking of the rule? Because you didn't want to walk so far? Because you had a disabled passenger with you and there were no other appropriate parking places? Because you had a puking child, and needed to just STOP? Context is all.
edited to add...
and as for comparing this to the controls over professional relationship... It is quite clear that the law, in this instance, has very clearly thought through a wide variety of situations and has decided that client confidentiality is PARAMOUNT. That is not the case here, where contact with bidders is banned in response to spamming and bottom feeding. That blanket response is clearly not appropriate, in the face of someone getting ripped off.
[ edited by mivona on Jan 26, 2001 08:27 AM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 08:25:54 AM newIf I see someone being abused, or whom I THINK is being abused, I speak up. It is not always an easy call, but I would rather be wrong with "rightness" in my heart and mind, than stand back with blinkered eyes and a closed mind.
And when you're wrong, I guess it's "Oh, my bad. So sorry..."
Meanwhile the falsely accused is left to suffer. We do indeed live in a sad time.
[ edited by dubyasdaman on Jan 26, 2001 08:27 AM ]
You are missing the point here, by focusing on the exact wording and grammar of part of the ad. The law would consider the ENTIRE situation in order to determine the outcome. For example, the item was listed in a category that GENERALLY has system units. The picture showed the packing tape still intact, which GENERALLY means the item is still inside. The starting bid was higher than would GENERALLY be for a plain box. And so on. The absence of commas would also be balanced against the general poor quality of writing.
In any case, its QUITE clear that there was no "meeting of the mind here". The buyer was expecting a system unit, based on the overall look and feel of the ad. At the very least, the whole thing is null and void.
Just as a famous example to prove that you are wrong, Publisher's Clearing House (or one of those sweepstakes companies) had to pay a whole bunch of money to consumers (or change their ads, or some such consequence) who sued them after getting their famous "YOU HAVE WON A MILLION DOLLARS (if your number matched the winning number) " letters. While technically (according to English Professors) their wording was correct, the overall look and feel of the letters was sufficient to mislead consumers. The "seller" (PCH) was held to a higher standard - they were ordered to make their mailings very clear to the general consumer, not to the typical English Professor.
So, exact wording is not sufficient to "win the day"...
And if the courts decide they set out to intentionally defraud the buyer, then we're talking criminal charges (jailtime), not just civil (money).
[ edited by captainkirk on Jan 26, 2001 08:48 AM ]
I recently moved into a community where a child was killed by her carers, tortured to death. She had been kept out of school, kept inside, kept in a bin bag, in the bath, beaten and starved until she died.
If I had seen this child EVER, I would have rung the authorities about her, wondering why she wasn't in school, wondering about the marks on her body... whatever.
I would not have looked away, wondering if everything was ok. I would have asked for someone to look into her family life. If I HEARD a child being beaten, I would ring the police, and knock on the door myself.
And if I was wrong, I would be wrong - and I would have to live with being wrong. If I have misread a situation, my concern would not impact on the subjects - because they were RIGHT! Just how do they "suffer"? And how do you weigh up their potential "suffering" against the potential suffering of the other party?
Lying about something and believing something... apples and ???
posted on January 26, 2001 08:48:50 AM newIn any case, its QUITE clear that there was no "meeting of the mind here". The buyer was expecting a system unit, based on the overall look and feel of the ad. At the very least, the whole thing is null and void.
"Meeting of the minds" is a nice concept and carries weight in a (civil) court of law. Should this buyer take the seller to court, he would likely win depending on the judge drawn.
But any judgement in favor of the buyer would result in a monetary reward. In other words, a civil judgement, not criminal. The bottom line here is that bidders need to know exactly what they're bidding on before placing a bid. There are only 2 possible ways to interpret the listing in question.
1) Up for bid is ONLY a box and a receipt. (this interpretation can only be made if the bidder reads the listing and takes it at face value)
2) The possibility exists that there is indeed a PS2 game console included but the seller made a mistake and worded the listing to reflect otherwise. (this interpretation implies doubt in the bidder's mind which means he should have asked for clarification)
posted on January 26, 2001 08:54:46 AM new
mivona ~ actually, in order for your example (with the child) to be accurate ~ your actions can not be normal/legal/rule abiding route.
My arguement has been that there are ways to do things that do not break the rules. In your example, going to the police is not breaking a rule or a law. Just as going to Safeharbor is not breaking a rule or a law. Getting a bunch of others to go to the police is not breaking any rules or laws.. just as getting several people to go to safeharbor is not breaking any rules or laws.
HOWEVER, if you go to the house and:
a) steal the child in order to prevent further abuse
b) kill the caregivers in order to prevent further abuse
c) insert any other illegal activities in order to prevent further abuse of the child.
That is more along the lines of what I'm speaking about.
I have no problem with someone going to the police (or safeharbor in ebay's situation) ... but I do have a problem with people taking the laws/rules into their own hands and abducting, etc .. to safe a child (or committing auction interference in ebay's situation).
My problem is with blatent disregard for rules/regulations/laws just because someone feels they have a moral responsibility and can't think past the "I'm going to be a hero to the weak" mode and go through the proper channels.
posted on January 26, 2001 08:56:13 AM newOne of the remaining active auctions has been revised. The added statement reads: I am not trying to mislead anyone. This auction is just for the PS2 box, it does not include a PS2
Both of the active auctions have the exact same title.
[ edited by Meya on Jan 26, 2001 09:22 AM ]
If this seller has shown a pattern of misrepresentation of listings with a clear intent of fraudently reaping large sums of money from unwary consumers, then you can bet that he would be subject to criminal charges as well. I am NOT saying this is the case here (haven't done any research, etc), just pointing out that nothing you've said so far precludes this option as well. In fact, you can be subject to both civil (money) and criminal charges for the same offense. In the famous OJ case, he was tried both ways.
"The bottom line here is that bidders need to know exactly what they're bidding on before placing a bid"
Exactly my point. Con artitst do their best to make the typical consumer *think* they knew "exactly" what they were bidding on. that's the whole point of being misleading - to write the ad in such a way that you are technically correct but in fact the average consumer believes something else. That's exactly why consumer-protection laws were written. Sellers are expected to make offers that are clear to the general person, and if they don't, they will suffer the consequences.
[ edited by captainkirk on Jan 26, 2001 09:00 AM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 08:58:58 AM new
A few weeks ago I posted something in which I got involved and a few individuals took me to task for auction interference. I thought since it is related, I would like to see what others think.
I found a new seller, 0 feedback, using a hotmail email ID, selling what was advertised as brand new digital cameras with low starting prices and no reserve. There were a few claims made in the auction that bothered me, such as the seller claiming they would come straight from the factory to the customer. The seller claimed he was able to offer these prices because he was getting it straight from the factory and therefore eliminating some of the middle men. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. As a distributor for that manufacturer, I know this to be the case. It goes from the factory to the master distributor to the regular distributor who may or may not drop ship. The seller accepted only money orders or Paypal. I checked his PP ID. It was brand new, unverified, PERSONAL account. That means the buyer could not use a credit card. Everything about these auctions shouted fraud. So I emailed Damon and told him of my concerns. The next day, that seller was NARU. I don't know what caused this. I suspect investigation showed he used false information to register or a stolen CC. But after he was NARUd, I emailed his bidders and warned them not to send money. Two of them responded that they were newbies and to explain what was happening. The seller had contacted them after being NARUd and asked for payment in money order. When I explained the details, they both thanked me for saving them a good deal of money.
At least one poster here said maybe because I raised an issue, the seller was NARUd for no reason. Maybe he intended to upgrade his PP account. Maybe I just ruined an innocent person. Now I did not contact ebay. So the only reason he might have been NARud due to me was if Paypal found that he used a stolen CC and contacted ebay.
But in this day where scam stories are proliferating, why are folks still bending over backwards to defend crooks? The faster we get rid of them, the faster our own businesses will succeed. If you look away when someone else is being hurt, the next day someone else will look away when you are the victim.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:02:57 AM newAnd if I was wrong, I would be wrong - and I would have to live with being wrong. If I have misread a situation, my concern would not impact on the subjects - because they were RIGHT! Just how do they "suffer"? And how do you weigh up their potential "suffering" against the potential suffering of the other party?
I don't doubt your sincerity in dealing with matters like this (your heart is in the right place).
The problem arises when someone is reported for an offense based on a mere suspicion, no proof. I personally know of a couple who had their children removed from their custody and then had to pay thousand$$$ in legal bills before the children were returned, only to find out after a lengthy (and thorough) investigation that the child had lied about being abused because of a curfew that the child didn't want to abide by. What happened to these people is just deplorable.
In no way do I condone child abuse or advocate sweeping it under the rug, but to ruin a person(s) life on a suspicion is the height of arrogance. Having proof is another matter entirely.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:08:11 AM new
Rosiebud---I guess the seller of this valuable empty box was brimming over with compassion when they pocketed the money.
And now you want us (who have absolutely no effect on their lives) to write compassionate things about them in this thread??? I'll leave that to their priest and judge.
I have never heard the words Con-Man and compassion used to describe the same person---their is a first for everything.
---I'm now off to read the rest of the posts on this thread
Here's an interesting example I'd like your view of. It was reported several weeks ago in our paper.
An elderly man was beaten to death in a store parking lot. A young man was seen beating him, and 911 was called. Before the police arrived, the man died. The bystanders stood around "following proper channels" waiting for the police to arrive. And someone died as a result. (This happened in a Maine supermarket)
This is what you would advocate? Or is perhaps the world a bit less "black and white" than you think?
In the case of the abused child, by the way, are you *sure* it would be "illegal" to prevent further abuse of the child by, say, "stealing" them? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would be curious for you to cite legal precedents backing up your assertion that it would be "illegal" to remove the child to protective custody if they were in imminent danger.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:16:26 AM new
Zazzie ~ and where, exactly, did you pull that out of? I never said anything about "compassion".. I was quoting others.. Maybe you should take your advice and go read the rest of the posts, that way it may make a little bit more sense to you.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:20:58 AM new
The situation as I see it.
Let's not comare selling an empty box with murder and child abuse.
First dilemma,
I see an auction I highly suspect fraud.
I email the buyer with good intentions.
He forwards my email to the seller.
The seller forwards my email to safe harbor and I get suspended by ebay for auction interference. Is ebay right? Yes. I did not follow their rules.
Now, since ebay is a vast amount of my income, especially in winter, who pays my bills? Not the buyer, that's for sure.
In short, I would have written to ebay safeharbor regarding this circumastance. The extent of bad side effects to me by not following the rules is not worth it to me, my family or to pay my obligations in life.
This has nothing to do with other circumstances in life. This has to do with making a living on ebay.
posted on January 26, 2001 09:29:29 AM new
barrelracer:
rip it apart? actually, I think you have a very reasonable position. You've balanced out helping others (by emailing safeharbor) with protecting yourself and your family (by not contacting the buyer directly). Its a very sensible position. Others may choose a different decision (contacting the buyers directly, or not contacting anyone at all) depending on their values and potential losses from their actions (ebay is, at best, a hobby to me, so if I get kicked off, no big deal, and I really enjoy helping others, so I would "cost/benefit" more towards being active in this case).
Of course, I might email the buyer from a newly-created, semi-untraceable hotmail account, and have the best of both worlds...
posted on January 26, 2001 09:37:00 AM new
Dubya (Gawd! I hate typing that name!),
The situation you cite is not unique, and is indicative of law in evolution. It is still not clear where the line of child abuse lies. Different people have different interpretations. Some people would think that the child was being abused, if only emotionally, by a curfew. Others might think that a curfew was too wussy, and that a sound spanking would have been better. Thirty years ago, people didn't think twice about beating their children with a belt, or a paddle, and it is only in more recent times that corporal punishment (for children as well as adults) has been questioned.
The point of this is to show how fuzzy the line, and the law can be. It is down to interpretation, and context, and it is not nearly so cut-and-dried, or black-and-white, as some think.
Barrelracer,
Good point. This is NOT about murder and child abuse, but got pulled into extremities by comparison with law governing "professional relationships". It is about the way we behave, based on our interpretation and the context, in the face of "rules" which have not been written for a specific or similar situation.
I would email Ebay *and* the bidder (particularly if the auction would end sooner than the 36-hour timeframe that Ebay work to).
posted on January 26, 2001 09:42:49 AM new
captainkirk ~ questions first because you provided insufficient information:
Where the bystanders there while the person was being beaten?
If they came in towards the end, and the person who was beating the man ran away, not much could be done. If they came in during, a citizens arrest could be made. Perfectly legal to do so.
How many bystanders?
If it's only 1 or 2 bystanders, it would seem a little foolhearty to try to take on a man who is in some sort of rage. More bystanders could have performed a citizens arrest.
Did the man die while he was being beaten or did the person who was beating him "drop him" and leave type of thing.. and the bystanders watched him die?
In today's society, the site of blood is enough to make people back off........ good samaritan laws or not
Was the person doing the beating armed with any sort of weapon or anything that could be construed as a weapon (gun, knife, club, etc)?
Personal safety is first and foremost
It probably wouldn't be as grey as you're making it, if 1)more information was given on the onset or 2)I was there, personally, and could take stock in the situtation.
In the case of the abused child, by the way, are you *sure* it would be "illegal" to prevent further abuse of the child by, say, "stealing" them? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I would be curious for you to cite legal precedents backing up your assertion that it would be "illegal" to remove the child to protective custody if they were in imminent danger.
I hear that exact same "story" when an ex-husband/wife 'steals' the children during a custody battle. They cry abuse.. and even, sometimes get the children to back them up.. they say "imminent danger"....... It's illegal, the parent who did it, a) loses custody b)gets restricted supervised visitation or c)spends time in jail . No one has the right to "steal" a child from the legal guardians. You do, have the right, to go to the police, DHS, or any other services and get that child taken away through "legal channels".
I imagine we can both agree that, given EQUALLY EFFECTIVE options, picking a legal one is better than an illegal one.
I think we disagree about what happens when the legal options are LESS EFFECTIVE than the "illegal" ones. In the case at hand, we all know that emailing safeharbor is a gamble..sometimes they do the right thing quickly, sometimes slowly, sometimes not at all. The "non black and white" situation arises when you are 90% certain something bad is going on (buyer is being clearly scammed in an auction) and you fear that safehabor is 30% likely to be timely and effective. In that case, you would (so I would assume) still "stick to proper channels" and allow the buyer to be scammed, whereas I would stick my neck out and take the chance and warn them.
Different strokes for different folks.
(I'm intentionally avoiding continuing our murder/child abuse discussion, since I think we could get into endless discussion wihtout really coming to a conclusion...)
And i'm starting to repeat myself, so its time to go back to reading the other threads here at AW...
[ edited by captainkirk on Jan 26, 2001 10:10 AM ]
[ edited by captainkirk on Jan 26, 2001 10:20 AM ]
posted on January 26, 2001 10:28:30 AM new
"All that is required for evil to prosper is that good men do nothing"
I forget who said this.
And as Cain said, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
And to paraphrase what God said, "YES DAMMIT!"
As participating citzens in this society, it is our responsibility to preserve it. Whether that be watching out for each other or admonishing those who break the rules.
And finally on a scarier note....If we do not police the internet, the government will appoint those who will. Soon the cries from the cheated buyers will raise to such a level that "new and improved" rules will be imposed to prevent the unregulated commerce on the internet. Possibly the licensing and registration of anyone who wants to sell(or possibly buy) on the internet. Also, expect a sharp rise in the number of hired "netcops" who had only learned to spell "INTERNET that morning and are now enforcing the rules based upon their own interpretation. All paid through taxes and new user fee structures paid by those who use the internet.
So remember this well....
If you do not do it, somebody else will.
And in the United States, that means the government.
posted on January 26, 2001 10:29:21 AM new
Well this is interesting---one of the current Empty Box auctions has an added description stating that it is an EMPTY BOX, and the seller was not intending to mislead anyone.
posted on January 26, 2001 10:54:09 AM new
So what is this person selling?
"This auction is for the Playstation 2 original box, I bought it from and friend and decided I don't really want it. I will ship for free via USPS, Payment by Paypal or Money Order (No Checks!) Happy Bidding!"
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
