[geeks] eBay question

[Dan Sikorski]

Doug McLaren wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:26:32AM -0400, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
> | Geoff (and others) should go to some agricultural sales some time for a good
> | education in how auctions are used.
>
> If I understand correctly, Geoff understands them fine.  It's just
> that they're being misrepresented.
>
> To put some fake numbers into his real situation --
>
> A radio, on ebay.  Beginning bid is $50.
>                    Current bid is $60.
>                    Reserve is $100, but we don't know that.
>
> Guy posts to a Usenet group, saying `Radio, $50!'
>
> I'm not entirely certain that this is Geoff's situation, but if it is,
> I find this to be deceptive.  It may not legally be false advertising
> (or may be -- I don't know) but it does offend me enough that I won't
> want to do business with this person -- if he'll lie about this, what
> else will he lie about?
>
> The auction itself isn't so deceptive but the Usenet post is.  Well,
> reserve prices might be somewhat deceptive, but they're well known and
> ebay says right there `Reserve price not met' so it's pretty minor.
>   
Yes, and you can certainly tell that usenet poster that he's a fool.  He 
has taken the item out of the context of an auction, and suggested that 
it was simply for sale at a low price.  That item is not for sale for 
$50, $60, or $100, it it up for auction, and it's sale is subject to the 
rules and terms of the auction.
> If he knows that the radio will NOT go for under $100, he should at
> least say `Radio, could be yours for $100'.  Less honest would be to
> give the current bid and say `Radio, currently at $60' (still, this is
> quite dishonest.)
>
> (Of course, my argument doesn't really change if there's no current
> bids -- I just included that so I could mention more scenarios.)
>
> Saying `Radio on Ebay, beginning bid $50' is deceptive too if nobody
> can actually get the radio for that price due to a reserve.  Perhaps
> it's technically accurate (and therefore not legally false
> advertising) but it's still misleading.  Saying `Radio, current bid
> $60' is also similarly misleading but not technically lying.
>   
As long as you can acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of bids 
are not winning bids, you realize that there is nothing deceptive about 
this.  I can have a non-winning bid under two conditions here.  One is 
that i am outbid, and the other is that my bid does not meet the 
seller's reserve. Either way, my offer to purchase was declined.  There 
is no contract, there is no sale.
> What's your recourse?  You don't have one, beyond not buying the
> thing.  Perhaps you could push the false advertising angle, but it
> seems very unlikely to ever get to court.  Ebay certainly doesn't care
> -- it makes them money.
>   
This is not false advertising as long as the item is advertised as being 
up for auction.  You are advertising an item and it's starting bid, not 
a sale price.  The auction provides a means of negotiating the sale price.
> Look at it this way -- the guy is doing you a favor by letting you
> know that he doesn't mind being deceptive about the price, so he might
> also not mind being deceptive about other things, like the condition
> of the radio.  And who wants to deal with somebody like that?
>   
As with anything else, buyer beware!  Personally, i don't hold the 
reserve price against the seller, but there are many other things that i 
do hold against them.  Anyone can choose to bid or not bid for any 
reason, including their dislike of the use of a reserve price.

    -Dan Sikorski