My EBAY Nightmare

[Ghost Town]

You trusted eBay to auction your book in the best manner possible. They failed you. The buyer trusted that you were a stand-up seller that was going to honor the auction. You failed him.

I don't know if that's a good comparison. Although the buyer has every right to be disappointed, he isn't losing anything. The seller could have lost a decent chunk of money because of eBay's incompetence.

 

To expect the seller to honor the auction when eBay failed to accept legitimate bids is pretty harsh in my book.

[Foolkiller]

You know, the one thing that's clear is that ebay completely mishandled this, and can't seem to get it together.

[Jaymole]

Besides their e-mails to the seller, what other proof is there that the book would have gotten higher bids? Would eBay have a record of what the timed out bidders tried to bid?

 

Just trying to figure out why eBay would be such and not cancel the auction.

[VintageComics]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

[Pmack-migration]

If ebay -didn't- block people from bidding high without confirming the ability to pay, there'd be a thread about how "ebay allowed a deadbeat bidder to bid $50,000 on my book, blah blah blah."

 

Why don't you just list the book for $17k if that's what you want for it?

 

With any luck, the relist will sell for less than $14k.

[Jaymole]

If ebay -didn't- block people from bidding high without confirming the ability to pay, there'd be a thread about how "ebay allowed a deadbeat bidder to bid $50,000 on my book, blah blah blah."

 

Why don't you just list the book for $17k if that's what you want for it?

 

With any luck, the relist will sell for less than $14k.

 

The problem was they should not have been blocked and eBay admitted they should not have been.

[harvdoss]

I feel for you I would be Irate. So far I have had no problems but I have not sold any books over 10K either. But I hear what you are saying as I have called before and they can do nothing...

[DrWatson]

If ebay -didn't- block people from bidding high without confirming the ability to pay, there'd be a thread about how "ebay allowed a deadbeat bidder to bid $50,000 on my book, blah blah blah."

 

Why don't you just list the book for $17k if that's what you want for it?

 

With any luck, the relist will sell for less than $14k.

Whose shill are you or are you just an ?

[RockMyAmadeus]

All you people who are saying the seller should "honor the sale"...I don't really understand what crack you're smoking. And I mean that nicely. But you're all on crack.

 

How many of you would, for example, if you bought a new dishwaser, and it broke down 2 days after you installed it, just say "oh well, that's the risk I take when I buy a major appliance" and not seek compensation? I mean, after all, defective products are made ALL THE TIME, and everyone is aware that defective products are made, so that's the risk you take, right...?

 

It's certainly easy to tell someone to "honor the sale" when it's not YOUR hard earned money that's at stake. (thumbs u

 

The buyer did not win the auction fair and square. There were technical problems beyond the control of the seller that clearly prevented higher bids from being placed.

 

Would you all say, if the book sold for $1276 because nobody else could get their bids in, that the seller should "honor the bid"...?

 

What if there was a glitch that went undiscovered, which didn't allow anyone to bid in the last DAY of the auction, and the seller was expecting snipe bids (which is now the norm), and the book sold for that amount, far, far below FMV, and the seller didn't find out until after the auction was over? What if those bidders tried to contact the seller, but the seller was not at his computer/digital device that day?

 

The argument doesn't hold at ANY amount, if it doesn't hold at ALL amounts.

 

Man was not made to serve the law, but the law to serve man. The law exists to make people whole, not give one party an advantage over the other. Just because "the hammer fell" doesn't mean it was a legitimate auction. In a case like this, where there was clearly a technical problem, and not just "sour grapes" on the part of the seller, the auction should be declared null and void and re-run at eBay's cost, with the "winning" bidder being invited to bid again. THAT is the correct way to handle this situation.

 

This is how it works, by the way, on other online auction sites, particularly Heritage.

 

For those saying "that's the risk you take when you use eBay", that's also ridiculous. eBay is just like any other company; you CONTRACT THEM to provide you a service, and they are OBLIGATED by that contract to provide that service. If they FAIL to provide that service, regardless of why, you are not under obligation to them, or anyone else, to complete your end of the contract.

 

The wherefores that eBay may offer are irrelevant to the seller; they are not his/her concern.

 

The seller did ABSOLUTELY the correct thing in this case. Pursuing eBay for damages would ALSO be the correct thing to do IN THEORY, but it's a fool's errand. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation with lawyers who will destroy a person, regardless of the merits of the case. eBay will spend ten times the amount of damages sought just to not lose a case in civil court, and force the claimant to do the same. And that's even if the seller could "prove" damages!

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

If ebay -didn't- block people from bidding high without confirming the ability to pay, there'd be a thread about how "ebay allowed a deadbeat bidder to bid $50,000 on my book, blah blah blah."

 

Why don't you just list the book for $17k if that's what you want for it?

 

With any luck, the relist will sell for less than $14k.

 

You're a person without enough empathy.

 

(thumbs u

 

[comicwiz]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

 

That's the beauty of the FTC. If they investigate and decide to prosecute, no amount of double-speak or deflection of blame will save eBay from being held accountable.

[VintageComics]

Man was not made to serve the law, but the law to serve man.

 

What a line.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

 

Sigh.

 

The "technical law" DOES NOT HOLD if one party (in this case, eBay) FAILS to provide the service they are contracted to provide. The law would rightfully recognize this as a "do-over."

[VintageComics]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

 

Sigh.

 

The "technical law" DOES NOT HOLD if one party (in this case, eBay) FAILS to provide the service they are contracted to provide. The law would rightfully recognize this as a "do-over."

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering if there is a difference in what eBay contractual law allows regarding an auction and what The Law allows in a situation like this where eBay failed?

 

Does eBay have some sort of "way out" for a situation like this?

[RockMyAmadeus]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

 

Sigh.

 

The "technical law" DOES NOT HOLD if one party (in this case, eBay) FAILS to provide the service they are contracted to provide. The law would rightfully recognize this as a "do-over."

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering if there is a difference in what eBay contractual law allows regarding an auction and what The Law allows in a situation like this where eBay failed?

 

Does eBay have some sort of "way out" for a situation like this?

 

Without researching it, I am sure beyond almost all shadow of a doubt that they do. They are, after all, a scuzzy company which has successfully shielded itself from complaints at any and all turns.

 

All because of Meg Whitman, of course.

 

You're absolutely correct, this is The Law I'm talking about, not technicalities in a codified set of rules. Fortunately for the seller, he doesn't HAVE to be taken advantage of because of a technicality (in this case, the auction ending with a "winning bidder.")

 

Aren't people upset when a murderer gets off on a technicality, only to murder again? Yes, I understand that's extreme, but it's still a technicality. And it's a weaker technicality (glitch) than not reading a suspect his Miranda Rights, ya know..? Why should the buyer be allowed to take advantage of the seller because of a technicality...?

[Flaming_Telepath]

All you people who are saying the seller should "honor the sale"...I don't really understand what crack you're smoking. And I mean that nicely. But you're all on crack.

 

How many of you would, for example, if you bought a new dishwaser, and it broke down 2 days after you installed it, just say "oh well, that's the risk I take when I buy a major appliance" and not seek compensation? I mean, after all, defective products are made ALL THE TIME, and everyone is aware that defective products are made, so that's the risk you take, right...?

 

It's certainly easy to tell someone to "honor the sale" when it's not YOUR hard earned money that's at stake. (thumbs u

 

The buyer did not win the auction fair and square. There were technical problems beyond the control of the seller that clearly prevented higher bids from being placed.

 

Would you all say, if the book sold for $1276 because nobody else could get their bids in, that the seller should "honor the bid"...?

 

What if there was a glitch that went undiscovered, which didn't allow anyone to bid in the last DAY of the auction, and the seller was expecting snipe bids (which is now the norm), and the book sold for that amount, far, far below FMV, and the seller didn't find out until after the auction was over? What if those bidders tried to contact the seller, but the seller was not at his computer/digital device that day?

 

The argument doesn't hold at ANY amount, if it doesn't hold at ALL amounts.

 

Man was not made to serve the law, but the law to serve man. The law exists to make people whole, not give one party an advantage over the other. Just because "the hammer fell" doesn't mean it was a legitimate auction. In a case like this, where there was clearly a technical problem, and not just "sour grapes" on the part of the seller, the auction should be declared null and void and re-run at eBay's cost, with the "winning" bidder being invited to bid again. THAT is the correct way to handle this situation.

 

This is how it works, by the way, on other online auction sites, particularly Heritage.

 

For those saying "that's the risk you take when you use eBay", that's also ridiculous. eBay is just like any other company; you CONTRACT THEM to provide you a service, and they are OBLIGATED by that contract to provide that service. If they FAIL to provide that service, regardless of why, you are not under obligation to them, or anyone else, to complete your end of the contract.

 

The wherefores that eBay may offer are irrelevant to the seller; they are not his/her concern.

 

The seller did ABSOLUTELY the correct thing in this case. Pursuing eBay for damages would ALSO be the correct thing to do IN THEORY, but it's a fool's errand. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation with lawyers who will destroy a person, regardless of the merits of the case. eBay will spend ten times the amount of damages sought just to not lose a case in civil court, and force the claimant to do the same. And that's even if the seller could "prove" damages!

 

 

 

eBay is a tool that you use to sell your items.

 

You chose that tool.

 

You contract directly with a buyer.

 

Your tool goes wrong.

 

Your contract with the buyer still stands.

 

Your claim against the tool manufacturer is what you pursue.

[VintageComics]

Aren't people upset when a murderer gets off on a technicality, only to murder again? Yes, I understand that's extreme, but it's still a technicality. And it's a weaker technicality (glitch) than not reading a suspect his Miranda Rights, ya know..? Why should the buyer be allowed to take advantage of the seller because of a technicality...?

 

That is exactly the scenario that came to my mind. It seems that some people who would be ticked that a murderer gets off on a technicality wouldn't be ticked to profit by a similar technicality if it's in their favor. It's that double standard that allows people to justify the situation to themselves.

 

 

[comicwiz]

I gotta agree with Cheetah and RMA's take on this. Although Brian is doing his best to make me waver.

 

I just think that in the spirit of things, it shouldn't go down like this. I think of it as being at the plate, two strikes on you and you whiff but the ump says you got a piece of it. You know you didn't. You shouldn't stand up there and get a free pitch. It ain't the right way to benefit.

 

As far as knowing if you were lied to, I don't have turnip tattooed on my forehead either. I'd ask the seller to prove to me what happened. If he could, i'd walk away disappointed I didn't get the book. But not as disappointed in myself if I guilted the guy into going through with it.

 

 

That's the key to all of this. On the side of the technical law, the seller has an obligation to sell the book.

 

The technical law (or eBay rules in this case) is written for the purpose of upholding the spirit of the law (fairness to both parties) and yet unfortunately, at times like this you find a crack in the technical law where the spirit and intent of the law (fairness to both parties) is not upheld.

 

Good luck in getting eBay to be accountable for the shortcomings of their site.

 

Sigh.

 

The "technical law" DOES NOT HOLD if one party (in this case, eBay) FAILS to provide the service they are contracted to provide. The law would rightfully recognize this as a "do-over."

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering if there is a difference in what eBay contractual law allows regarding an auction and what The Law allows in a situation like this where eBay failed?

 

Does eBay have some sort of "way out" for a situation like this?

 

The way out for eBay would be to "do-over" the auction, and put in place a resolution to the glitch before the FTC decides to breathe over their shoulder and demand it be done according to their liking. The latter would be costlier and about as cumbersome to eBay as being audited by the IRS or Revenue Canada.

 

IMHO, the glitch is likely linked to verification of ID and credit card details. Because neither can be properly reconciled in a timely manner in this day and age, the "smart" thing for eBay to do is the following:

 

1. Clearly post on all auctions exceeding 10K a disclaimer to the effect that all bidders will require verification - click here to find out if you are eligable; etc.

 

2. In cases where a bidder clearly expresses an interest in bidding, but is unable due to a delay in verification; such auctions should automatically have a certain amount of time added to the end time to allow those bidders an opportunity to bid. Because of the amount, I would say 24 hrs or a 1-day period be added to the auction to allow any bidder in the process of being verified the same opportunity to participate.

 

3. In cases where bidder verification measures fall through the cracks, a "second chance" feature should be put in place for those bidders to up the final bid, and given at minimum a 24 hr period to enter their bid amount. This would be for bidders who have expressed a desire to participate prior to an auction ending, and due to delays in verification, would be notified by email to put in an offer. The winning bidder determined at auctions end would still have a chance to up his bid, however the purpose would be to legitimately allow the same opportunity to those excluded for verification or "unknown" technical reasons.

[cheetah]

All you people who are saying the seller should "honor the sale"...I don't really understand what crack you're smoking. And I mean that nicely. But you're all on crack.

 

How many of you would, for example, if you bought a new dishwaser, and it broke down 2 days after you installed it, just say "oh well, that's the risk I take when I buy a major appliance" and not seek compensation? I mean, after all, defective products are made ALL THE TIME, and everyone is aware that defective products are made, so that's the risk you take, right...?

 

It's certainly easy to tell someone to "honor the sale" when it's not YOUR hard earned money that's at stake. (thumbs u

 

The buyer did not win the auction fair and square. There were technical problems beyond the control of the seller that clearly prevented higher bids from being placed.

 

Would you all say, if the book sold for $1276 because nobody else could get their bids in, that the seller should "honor the bid"...?

 

What if there was a glitch that went undiscovered, which didn't allow anyone to bid in the last DAY of the auction, and the seller was expecting snipe bids (which is now the norm), and the book sold for that amount, far, far below FMV, and the seller didn't find out until after the auction was over? What if those bidders tried to contact the seller, but the seller was not at his computer/digital device that day?

 

The argument doesn't hold at ANY amount, if it doesn't hold at ALL amounts.

 

Man was not made to serve the law, but the law to serve man. The law exists to make people whole, not give one party an advantage over the other. Just because "the hammer fell" doesn't mean it was a legitimate auction. In a case like this, where there was clearly a technical problem, and not just "sour grapes" on the part of the seller, the auction should be declared null and void and re-run at eBay's cost, with the "winning" bidder being invited to bid again. THAT is the correct way to handle this situation.

 

This is how it works, by the way, on other online auction sites, particularly Heritage.

 

For those saying "that's the risk you take when you use eBay", that's also ridiculous. eBay is just like any other company; you CONTRACT THEM to provide you a service, and they are OBLIGATED by that contract to provide that service. If they FAIL to provide that service, regardless of why, you are not under obligation to them, or anyone else, to complete your end of the contract.

 

The wherefores that eBay may offer are irrelevant to the seller; they are not his/her concern.

 

The seller did ABSOLUTELY the correct thing in this case. Pursuing eBay for damages would ALSO be the correct thing to do IN THEORY, but it's a fool's errand. They are a multi-billion dollar corporation with lawyers who will destroy a person, regardless of the merits of the case. eBay will spend ten times the amount of damages sought just to not lose a case in civil court, and force the claimant to do the same. And that's even if the seller could "prove" damages!

 

 

 

eBay is a tool that you use to sell your items.

 

You chose that tool.

 

You contract directly with a buyer.

 

Your tool goes wrong.

 

Your contract with the buyer still stands.

 

Your claim against the tool manufacturer is what you pursue.

 

Actually, eBay is an independent 3rd party whose business model was originally designed to provide both sellers and buyers to have a convinient platform for making deals. The platform was designed to provide a safe and fair environment for both parties. The independent 3rd party failed to meet their obligation but both the buyer and seller are helpless (without a huge financial risk) to do anything to hold them to their part of the deal. A hammer is a tool. If you hit your thumb with it, you are at fault. If a contractor hits your thumb with a hammer, the contractor is at fault.

[Loki]

eBay is a tool that you use to sell your items.

 

You chose that tool.

 

You contract directly with a buyer.

 

Your tool goes wrong.

 

Your contract with the buyer still stands.

 

Your claim against the tool manufacturer is what you pursue.

 

I've been following this thread for a while, and this was my opinion at first too. The thing that is missed here, is what happens to the legitimate bidder who was willing to pay $17,000 but wasn't able to because of a technical fault of eBay's? Does he make a claim against the buyer for possession of the book that should have been his?

 

It's a very messy situation, but I've come around to thinking that the fair thing would probably be the "do-over" auction.