posted on April 11, 2003 07:32:04 PM
This afternoon I was in a small high-end antique mall in a rural town. As I was browsing the items on display, the owner of the mall was chatting with an antique dealer. I listened in to the conversation.
The mall owner told a story about how this man came into the mall over a period of a few months, carrying a digital camera. The man would look over the merchandise, then ask the mall owner if he could photograph a couple of dozen items, so that he could review the photographs at his leisure at home, thus being able to compare the digital photos to photos in his reference books. The man told the mall owner he would come back and purchase the items he determined were authentic.
Well the man did come back and purchase some items. And he took photos of other items, then came back and purchased a few of those items too. The weeks went by, then one of the items that was photographed was sold to another customer. The man came back, wanted to know where the item was, the mall owner informed the man that the item sold, and the man had a fit in the store and in his rage the truth about the photo taking came out.
I bet all of you can guess the outcome of this story. Yep, the man was taking photos of the most expensive and rare antiques, then using the photos to list the items for sale on eBay, with a high reserve matching a BIN price. If the item sold, the man would return to the antique mall, purchase the item, and ship it to the winning bidder. His profit was the reserve price he set over and above all costs. So he never had any investment in inventory, just sold stuff that didn't belong to him.
Needless to say, the mall owner banned this individual from his mall when he found out what was going on.
posted on April 11, 2003 07:50:21 PM
Related to your story, I had a spot in an antique mall where the owner of the mall would put other dealers items on "layaway". Sometimes the "customer" would purchase the item, sometimes it would be returned to the dealers booth. Hmmmm.
There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
posted on April 11, 2003 08:16:50 PM
some store owners actually welcome others to take pictures and sell them on ebay and would call and let you know if the item is sold.
what does the owner care if he sells on ebay or not as long as he can sell his items??
posted on April 11, 2003 09:24:12 PM
Many antique malls and antique shops run their own eBay auctions, and have web sites selling the mall's inventory. Another consideration is that mall space vendors will run their own eBay aucitons on their inventory. My assumption as to why the mall owner banned this particular individual is 1)because the man lied in order to obtain the digital photos, 2)he did not get the permission of the owners of the items to sell their merchandise or to publish the photos in an auction format on eBay, and 3)he was potentially running conflicting auctions against the mall space vendors on the exact same items.
I imagine there are some major legal issues here, and the mall owner is correct to ban the man from his premises, so as to minimize legal liability with respect to his own vendors.
posted on April 11, 2003 09:34:55 PM
That is funny. I still don't see why the shop owner would care too much. He probably was just annoyed at what this person was doing, and that might have been the reason. Who knows. I wonder what his explanation was to the customer, obviously was not the truth!
posted on April 12, 2003 12:56:55 AM
If I was the store owner, and this guy threw a hissy fit in the store because of what happened, I'd throw his ass out too. Who has time to listen to that?
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on April 12, 2003 05:48:43 AM
From Ebay User Agreement:
Listing and Selling. 5.1 Listing Description. You must be legally able to sell the item(s) you list for sale on the Site.
.2 Binding Bids. Except for items listed in a category under the Non-binding Bid Policy, if you receive at least one bid at or above your stated minimum price (or in the case of reserve auctions, at or above the reserve price), you are obligated as the seller to complete the transaction with the highest bidder upon the auction's completion, unless there is an exceptional circumstance, such as: (a) the buyer fails to meet the terms of your listing (such as payment method), or (b) you cannot authenticate the buyer's identity.
5.3 Fraud. Without limiting any other remedies, eBay may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect that you (by conviction, settlement, insurance or escrow investigation, or otherwise) have engaged in fraudulent activity in connection with the Site.
6.2 Restricted Activities. Your Information (or any items listed) and your activities on the Site shall not: (a) be false, inaccurate or misleading; (b) be fraudulent or involve the sale of counterfeit or stolen items; ...Snip...
or false advertising)...
---------
The man taking the pictures of someone else's property did not have a legal right to list it for sale. The owner can hire someone to list & sell it, but he didn't. The Ebay seller failed to complete the transaction simply because he sold something he didn't own or have a legal right to. He likely was practicing fraud in most jurisdictions, and definitely violated several items in Ebay's TOS.
From the Ebay Seller guidelines:
Please note that eBay reviews reports of sellers that refuse payment and fail to deliver an item at the end of a successful transaction. Well, he probably already took the payment.
He know he was wrong, that's why he got so defensive when he was caught. If he'd sold a Walmart item he knows he can go back and purchase week after week, he would have been okay. But he offered a single one-of-a-kind item he didn't own.
Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me? I do my best to buy it after you pay me!
posted on April 12, 2003 07:38:34 AM
"The man taking the pictures of someone else's property did not have a legal right to list it for sale"
Sure he did. Look up the term BROKER in the dictionary.
"If he'd sold a Walmart item he knows he can go back and purchase week after week, he would have been okay. But he offered a single one-of-a-kind item he didn't own."
Legally, or as far as eBay's rules go, there is no difference at all.
"Anyone want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me? I do my best to buy it after you pay me!"
The difference being that the Brooklyn Bridge isn't really for sale. If it were, you COULD legally sell it and collect a broker fee.
I would bet on the hissy fit being the reason he was banned. He had EVERY legal right to do what he did, but he deserves to get slammed in feedback by whoever's order he couldn't fill.
posted on April 12, 2003 08:36:57 AM
As far as I can see, the shop owner shot himself in the foot. Sure moral outrage is fine, vent and move on, but considering that this person was regularly buying items from him at his desired asking price, why ban him?
What would have been a more intelligent businees move would have been to work with the ebay seller, make sure that he knew what items were currenty up for sale and make sure that he knows if this item sells in the store while it is up for auction so that they ebayer can cancel the auction. If an item sold successfully the ebayer should have to place a 10% non refundable deposit on the item to hold it for two weeks while waiting for payment.
Store owner wins by clearing out inventory at his desired price, ebayer wins by making a profit of his own, ebay buyer wins getting that one of a kind piece they just had to have.
When I mentioned Wal-Mart I meant he could have gotten away with it, since he could have fulfilled the sale. I didn't mean it was okay or right or different other than that the merchandise is nearly always available.
A broker is hired to sell for another and has the permission or consent of the merchandise owner. This man was not hired, was not selling for another, there was no agreemnt with the merchandise owner, nor was any permission given expressed or implied. He was not able to legally sell the item at the time he listed it.
I could not legally sell the Brooklyn Bridge even if it was up for sale unless I had permission from the owner to represent them as a broker.
Suppose you were cruising Ebay and looked to see what your model and year of car was selling for. And you find that someone had taken a picture of your car in front of your house and had listed it on Ebay. Let's say you even had a "for sale" sign on it.
Let's say the Ebay seller was a person in your home town who had seen your ad in the paper, come to see the car, and had told you he was going to pay you $2500 for the car "in a few days", let him get the money together. He "takes a picture to show his wife". You agreed to hold it a few days for him, but nothing was in writing.
Before paying you, he puts the car up for sale on Ebay. He sells it. You find out he listed your car while you still owned it. I doubt you'd be too happy about it. He had no legal right to sell the car. It was yours not his, despite his plan to buy it.
Or maybe you are upset, because you employ the same method to sell on Ebay? I only ask because you protest too much. Your response was very extreme for a casual reader here. What are you not telling us?
Patty
[ edited by meadowlark on Apr 12, 2003 09:01 AM ]
If the Ebay seller had been upfront with the shop owner, it might have worked great. And the Ebay seller may have been basically an honest person, but he did deceive the shop owner already. I would tend not to trust someone who had already lied to me. The bigger issue is that he broke the rules.
Everyone else,
I want to make it clear that I had not expressed moral outrage above. The bold sections are so each reader could pinpoint the appropriate section in long text. I just posted the reasons it was not okay, per Ebay and likely law enforcement jurisdictions. I do understand that the shop owner was outraged.
This forum is about Ebay and they clearly say it's a no-no. If you sell this way, just be willing to handle the consequences if it is found out. This forum is for sharing info and opinions, although some consider it a place to duke it out.
Patty
[ edited by meadowlark on Apr 12, 2003 08:51 AM ]
posted on April 12, 2003 08:56:40 AM
i agree,if someone walks into my store with a camera and said he wants to take pictures of my nice items so he can go home and compare to his reference books and end up selling them on ebay,i want to know what other BS is he going to feed me next time??
If he is honest and say i want to sell your item on ebay and if i am not selling them myself,i will be happy to work with him.
posted on April 12, 2003 08:58:06 AM
Oh, and as far as dropshipping, one must have some sort of agreement with the dropshipper merchant that one is selling it for. Not the same situation.
Patty
[ edited by meadowlark on Apr 12, 2003 09:02 AM ]
posted on April 12, 2003 09:04:18 AM
Patty - I don't see anyone duking it out here, I see do see two different point of views.
There are those that are examining the moral aspects of the deal and those that are examining the business aspects.
Morally, yes, he should have discussed his plan with the mall owner - that was his mistake.
Business wise - the mall owner banned what appeared to have been a very good and consistant buyer. In this economy, that is also a mistake.
I don't see pointing out the other side of the coin as duking it out.
On the other hand I think that making implications of nefarious behavior based on someones ability and willingness to point out that other side could definitely seen as a slap in the face.
posted on April 12, 2003 10:09:28 AM
Meadowlark said:
"Before paying you, he puts the car up for sale on Ebay. He sells it. You find out he listed your car while you still owned it. I doubt you'd be too happy about it. He had no legal right to sell the car. It was yours not his, despite his plan to buy it. "
No, I'd be thrilled, after all, I got the price I wanted. What do I care what he does with it. If I had sold in in the meantine, he'd be stuck, but that's HIS problem.
"Or maybe you are upset, because you employ the same method to sell on Ebay? I only ask because you protest too much. Your response was very extreme for a casual reader here. What are you not telling us?"
Not at all, but I post & read on the Amazon.com Seller Discussion board, and this very situation comes up all the time over there.
Bookscouts find books, and then place orders to fulfill them. Some people thinks it's perfectly fine, orther believe it's ethically terrible. I don't sell that way myself, but I don't have a problem with people who do it either.
When I get an order from a book search company (Harvest Books or Justin Cox to name a couple), I'm more than happy to fill it. They have agreed with their customer to buy it from me, and I have no idea ahead of time that they have done this. They don't have PERMISSION to sell my items, but I have put it up for sale- I don't CARE what the person paying me for it wants to do with it.
If they want to read it, sell it or set it on fire, I'm getting my asking price.
And as far as your insinuating that I have something to hide or do this myself... I do in fact disagree with your position- that doesn't mean I do what we're discussing. I have good feedback and want to keep it that way- I don't take risks like selling items that aren;t available. All my stuff is in stock before I list it.
posted on April 12, 2003 02:53:42 PM
The guy taking pictures in the antique mall missed a great opportunity. Instead of being sneaky about it, he could have approached a couple of shop owners and offered to be their eBay "listing agent" for a percentage of the sale. (If you browse eBay Motors, you will find many people who are acting in this capacity.) He could cover the listing fees himself for the first couple of "contracts" - you gotta be willing to invest up front, right? - so the antiquers would have no initial financial outlay. After he had made a few sales (and he would have, as he is apparently a successful eBayer) his reputation would ensure more listings. But he blew it.
I think I'll print out some of my eBay feedback and listings and wander down to our local (huge!) antique mall and offer my services - you never know...
posted on April 12, 2003 03:40:12 PM
My husband has Alzheimers, stage six. He was a criminal law professor for over 30 years. Though he is mentally confused on most things, he still retains strong clarity with regards to criminal law issues. I related the story to my husband, and he said if a person takes photos of something he does not own, and sells that item without permission of the owner - before he buys the item for himself - he is committing fraud. He said it depends on how busy the district attorney is, but many district attorneys will prosecute such cases.
I don't see how the scenario I presented relates to books if photos are not taken of the books, and if there is discussion with the owners of the books.
Regarding the antique mall owner, and the mall space vendors in the mall, I can see the merit in the mall owner and vendors not wanting this fraud to happen. The owner builds a business by carefully selecting vendors who bring in quality inventory. Customers come back to the mall because they were able to find specific genuine antiques each time they went to the mall, not just display booths filled with low-priced junk fillers, like Japanese ceramics, ice cream scoops and English tea cups. If a person comes to the mall, takes photos of only the high end antiues he has not purchased, and he sells the antiques (thus coming back to purchase the antiques) the result is to completely denude the mall of all high end antiques before the vendors can replenish the stock. The result is that returning customers walk in and see a mall filled only will low priced fillers. When that happens more than once, the customers don't return because it is a waste of their time to browse a mall with nothing but junk and filler. The mall owner and the mall vendors lose financially.
I guess I musta not had my first cuppa coffee this morning when I read your first reply. I thought you were yelling at me! Ah, wonders of more sleep and some coffee...
I also "got it" that you don't practice this. Thanks for the clarification.
posted on April 12, 2003 08:42:07 PM
What a timely thread! I have a space in a large Antique mall. Within the last month, all of the dealers were given a letter addressing the issue of the dealers themselves doing what this gentleman with the digital camera was doing on his weekly visits. Seems like some of my fellow dealers were listing items on ebay while they were for sale in the mall at the same time. There were problems of course. Now, anyone listing an item on ebay which is on display in the mall must remove the price tag and put a "hold" sign on any item we have listed on ebay. A simple solution that has worked out great. I think that the guy "drop shipping" ( for lack of a better word) the items from his local antique mall was stupid in the way he handled the whole thing, he blew it, but so did the owner. Ebay and Antique malls don't have to compete and be at odds...ours really compliments each other. BUT if you want to see an example of how this can REALLY work out pretty perfectly profitably click on the sellers "me" page for this ebay item: 2626773710 KA-CHING$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
posted on April 12, 2003 09:41:32 PM
Yeah, I'm old enough to remember Fiestware. I like some of the other colors, but that one hurts my eyes! Well done to the seller. Some buyer really wanted that one!
posted on April 14, 2003 10:01:28 AM
Interesting thread. I could stay up all night splitting legal hairs ~
I think I see the distinction, however, between what this guy is doing and what a broker/search service does. In my admittedly limited experience, a broker will search within general parameters (X item in Y condition costing no more than $Z) but won't take money for a specific item until he/she knows it's available, or advising his customers that they had no guarantee of getting the item. Basically, what they're selling is not the item itself, but their time, effort and expertise in conducting the search.
In the instant case, the guy was listing specific, individual items and (presumably, if he has a BIN button in his auctions) taking payment for them with no guarantee that he'd actually be able to get them.
The sad thing is that he was actually providing a fairly valuable service to the antique mall owner, and if he'd struck a deal with the guy (Dude, I'll list your items for free if you'll agree to take them off the shelf for a short period of time) then everything would have been hunky dory. But barring that relationship between the eBay seller and the item's owner, yes, I believe he is committing fraud.
[ edited by msincognito on Apr 14, 2003 10:05 AM ]
posted on April 18, 2003 02:29:20 PM
I'm not sure I understand your logic here...
"Regarding the antique mall owner, and the mall space vendors in the mall, I can see the merit in the mall owner and vendors not wanting this fraud to happen. The owner builds a business by carefully selecting vendors who bring in quality inventory. Customers come back to the mall because they were able to find specific genuine antiques each time they went to the mall, not just display booths filled with low-priced junk fillers, like Japanese ceramics, ice cream scoops and English tea cups. If a person comes to the mall, takes photos of only the high end antiues he has not purchased, and he sells the antiques (thus coming back to purchase the antiques) the result is to completely denude the mall of all high end antiques before the vendors can replenish the stock. The result is that returning customers walk in and see a mall filled only will low priced fillers. When that happens more than once, the customers don't return because it is a waste of their time to browse a mall with nothing but junk and filler. The mall owner and the mall vendors lose financially."
Isn't the whole point of having items in a mall to sell them? What's the difference if this guy buys them or some rich dude comes in and plunks down the cash?
I've been to a few malls where the prices were unbelieveably(sp?) high. I'm sure their good stuff is still there if I want to go back and "look", but I don't.
posted on April 18, 2003 02:46:35 PMIsn't the whole point of having items in a mall to sell them? What's the difference if this guy buys them or some rich dude comes in and plunks down the cash?
That's what I was wondering also. Either way a quick call to the vendors and they should be able to bring in new items to replenish.
Cheryl
Sniping works up a thirst"
