My EBAY Nightmare

[Designer Toast]

E-bay's TOS covers them for this sort of crud.

 

I think Brian is right - not that I'm a lawyer and I certainly wouldn't give you any legal advice. Since e-Bay requires buyer verification and bidders reported to the seller they were registered and unable to bid, I'd think there would be a reasonable expectation that the system in place should work.

 

Then again, those service agreements are generally written bullet proof. That and pursuing any legal action against e-Bay could be costly, especially if you're on the losing end.

[TempusFugitivus]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

I do not disagree with this in any way. But ebay/paypal was basically: "Tough Luck."

And the buyer was first uncommunicative, then threats, then swears. Not even a lick of sympathy. I'm actually a fairly righteous person. If he had made a single appeal to my sense of fairness, I would have certainly done whatever I could to try to make it work out for him. Please notice in my first e-mail to him that I specifically say I am undecided what I am going to do. This was an attempt to open a dialogue. But no one swears at me (particularly that swear) and is going to get anything from me but a taste of some fairly insane Irish temper.

[cheetah]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

[Foolkiller]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

I do not disagree with this in any way. But ebay/paypal was basically: "Tough Luck."

And the buyer was first uncommunicative, then threats, then swears. Not even a lick of sympathy. I'm actually a fairly righteous person. If he had made a single appeal to my sense of fairness, I would have certainly done whatever I could to try to make it work out for him. Please notice in my first e-mail to him that I specifically say I am undecided what I am going to do. This was an attempt to open a dialogue. But no one swears at me (particularly that swear) and is going to get anything from me but a taste of some fairly insane Irish temper.

 

From a practical standpoint, the reality is, by this guy devolving the conversation to its lowest level, instead of simply saying, I'm really, really disappointed, I'm sorry you got screwed, and let's work something out, everyone is unhappy. There's always a middle ground to accomplish something that's fair. And so I agree it's very tough to feel any sympathy for the buyer at all.

[zuckuss2003]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

Was the winning bid really that "reduced", it was the same as the last sale according to GPA. And how was this buyer trying to take advantage of the seller?

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

To (Hades) with ebay.

 

And some of you have the nerve to wonder why I came down like a ton of bricks on that "eBay representative."

 

 

You think stories like this are unique...? Think again.

[TempusFugitivus]

I spent a few minutes looking all over to see if there was some new policy I needed to learn (because if you need to verify first, we ALL need to know) ...Couldn't find it so I just called them. I was told that they don't have a policy like this, but there has been spyware targeting the site asking for this information. He said it has been a recent problem. The spyware/malware mimics the bidding page and asks for personal information including credit card numbers and passswords...Not a good thing and it's not just the old link in a phishing email.

 

He said if anyone gets that request when trying to bid, it is NOT from eBay and you should not respond...but the programs can block bids.

 

That kind of makes a little bit of sense...Did anyone mention this to you?

 

In any case, I'm sorry you had to go through this.

 

This is completely new to me.

 

Here's a little ebay chat to show what I was up against:

 

12:06:38 AM tempusfugitivus

I'm pretty sure someone with a feedback score over 4000 shouldn't have any of these problems putting down a bid.

12:06:53 AM Sherrie G.

Right.

12:07:40 AM Sherrie G.

But come to think of it, why would they place their bid on the last seconds of the auction if they're really interested on buying the item as they say?

12:09:20 AM Sherrie G.

If they haven't placed a bid before, then they trying to snipe the auction.

12:09:48 AM tempusfugitivus

You did not really just say that. Do you even understand your own business?

12:12:09 AM tempusfugitivus

Typically people put down tracking bids (all of these did). They do not put down large bids immediately because they will be run up. They then bid or snipe at their best price. Take a look at the second highest (in price item). It went from 6.3k to well over 8k right at the end.

12:12:37 AM tempusfugitivus

By blocking people at the end, your company screwed me over.

12:13:03 AM Sherrie G.

We're just doing that for security purposes, John. I apologize for any inconvenience.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

The guy thought he won at a good price, and you didn't honor that auction win? Did I miss somewhere how this was his fault?

 

Edit: Don't get me wrong, it sounds like ebay messed up for you but I think the guy deserves his comic.

 

If you were selling your $100,000 book in a live auction, and the power went off in the building during it, plunging the place into near-dakrness...but the auctioneer went ahead anyways, asking if there were any more bids, but not being able to see the frantic bidders holding up their paddles, and so dropped the hammer at $15,000....

 

...should you have to honor that sale?

 

When eBay screws up, the auction should be cancelled. The guy didn't win the comic "fair and sqaure." He won it under dubious circumstances.

 

Frankly, I wouldn't have honored the sale either.

[JWKyle]

Oh crude forgot he dropped the C-bomb on you. If I did have a Amazing Spider-man 1 in any grade for sale or auction and the buyer called me that or anything like that I don't thing I would hesitate not selling that person the book. Just wouldn't feel right a prized possession is a -holes collection. My opinion is formed no need for me to fan any flames. Good Luck with a re-sale.

[Foolkiller]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

The problem with this line of thought is that an auction can suffer from a number of things which cause the price to go lower. For the buyer to "force" the seller to go through isn't unethical at all. Auctions go for lower prices all the time and sellers aren't allowed to back out because they didn't get the price they wanted. This is not a case of not a very large percentage of what he may have gotten anyway.

 

Nobody is trying to game the system, doesn't sound like the buyer knew about the problem beforehand, so how could his ethics be called into question from that standpoint?

 

Let's say (not that this happened here) that the buyer paid immediately, and then the seller comes back and reneges because of the glitch -- the buyer paid in good faith. How do you know that you aren't being lied to? Or that there's some other manipulation because the seller just didn't like the price?

 

The buyer shouldn't be allowed to take advantage, they are simply completing the transaction under the absolute rules of the auction system.

 

For this specific buyer, the problem is the delayed payment and the utter idiocy with which he handled the situation.

 

From a strict factual standpoint, as a I said, the onus falls on the seller to complete and then pursue a remedy with the 3rd party who has wronged him.

[cheetah]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

Was the winning bid really that "reduced", it was the same as the last sale according to GPA. And how was this buyer trying to take advantage of the seller?

 

Just like losing your wallet and someone finding it. They have a choice to return it or steal your money. The guy knew the situation and still wanted to take advantage of it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

John, you're a stand up guy and a first rate seller. Despite ebay's issues, it isn't as if the book sold for $5.

 

The buyer had a legitimate gripe. You had a legitimate gripe. Unfortunately, I think the buyer -- who should never have let it devolve into complete incivility --- has some legitimate claim here and the transaction should have been completed. I know it seems tough to swallow but... the auction is the auction.

 

Now what I wonder is if ebay has exposed themselves to liability here... let's say John had completed the sale, and as a result of some ebay mistake or glitch, thousands of dollars were lost. I'm not saying it's an easy case, but it certainly makes me wonder.

 

There were many times, years ago when eBay would go down during Sunday night auctions..too much activity, and the system would blow up...They wouldn't extend the time....I was only selling small items, but it hurt. I just sent the items.

 

I can't imagine how upset I'd have been on a large $$ items like these.

 

Oh, how well do I remember...and then they'd extend those auctions "affected" by 24 hours, not realizing that timing was everything, and the extra time did no good. And even worse, those outside of the "affected window" (according to eBay's definitions) got no additional, even though bidders had given up in frustration already, so those auctions ended without ending activity...

 

Good times, good times. I can't imagine how many millions of dollars were lost.

[skypinkblu]

I spent a few minutes looking all over to see if there was some new policy I needed to learn (because if you need to verify first, we ALL need to know) ...Couldn't find it so I just called them. I was told that they don't have a policy like this, but there has been spyware targeting the site asking for this information. He said it has been a recent problem. The spyware/malware mimics the bidding page and asks for personal information including credit card numbers and passswords...Not a good thing and it's not just the old link in a phishing email.

 

He said if anyone gets that request when trying to bid, it is NOT from eBay and you should not respond...but the programs can block bids.

 

That kind of makes a little bit of sense...Did anyone mention this to you?

 

In any case, I'm sorry you had to go through this.

 

This is completely new to me.

 

Here's a little ebay chat to show what I was up against:

 

12:06:38 AM tempusfugitivus

I'm pretty sure someone with a feedback score over 4000 shouldn't have any of these problems putting down a bid.

12:06:53 AM Sherrie G.

Right.

12:07:40 AM Sherrie G.

But come to think of it, why would they place their bid on the last seconds of the auction if they're really interested on buying the item as they say?

12:09:20 AM Sherrie G.

If they haven't placed a bid before, then they trying to snipe the auction.

12:09:48 AM tempusfugitivus

You did not really just say that. Do you even understand your own business?

12:12:09 AM tempusfugitivus

Typically people put down tracking bids (all of these did). They do not put down large bids immediately because they will be run up. They then bid or snipe at their best price. Take a look at the second highest (in price item). It went from 6.3k to well over 8k right at the end.

12:12:37 AM tempusfugitivus

By blocking people at the end, your company screwed me over.

12:13:03 AM Sherrie G.

We're just doing that for security purposes, John. I apologize for any inconvenience.

 

It was new to me, too...that's why I posted it.

 

I did get a higher level person to answer. He sounded well informed. HE said basically that a policy like that would make no sense, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

. I never had any success with those online chat thingys on that site, none of the people who staff the chatlines ever make any sense to me, so I wind up calling.

 

.I suppose the next thing to do would be to canvas some sites with people who have more computer spyware knowledge, but it's kind of late here.

 

The best of luck!

 

I used to love eBay, I've been more than disappointed with them at times, but they serve a purpose for me.

[Foolkiller]

I spent a few minutes looking all over to see if there was some new policy I needed to learn (because if you need to verify first, we ALL need to know) ...Couldn't find it so I just called them. I was told that they don't have a policy like this, but there has been spyware targeting the site asking for this information. He said it has been a recent problem. The spyware/malware mimics the bidding page and asks for personal information including credit card numbers and passswords...Not a good thing and it's not just the old link in a phishing email.

 

He said if anyone gets that request when trying to bid, it is NOT from eBay and you should not respond...but the programs can block bids.

 

That kind of makes a little bit of sense...Did anyone mention this to you?

 

In any case, I'm sorry you had to go through this.

 

This is completely new to me.

 

Here's a little ebay chat to show what I was up against:

 

12:06:38 AM tempusfugitivus

I'm pretty sure someone with a feedback score over 4000 shouldn't have any of these problems putting down a bid.

12:06:53 AM Sherrie G.

Right.

12:07:40 AM Sherrie G.

But come to think of it, why would they place their bid on the last seconds of the auction if they're really interested on buying the item as they say?

12:09:20 AM Sherrie G.

If they haven't placed a bid before, then they trying to snipe the auction.

12:09:48 AM tempusfugitivus

You did not really just say that. Do you even understand your own business?

12:12:09 AM tempusfugitivus

Typically people put down tracking bids (all of these did). They do not put down large bids immediately because they will be run up. They then bid or snipe at their best price. Take a look at the second highest (in price item). It went from 6.3k to well over 8k right at the end.

12:12:37 AM tempusfugitivus

By blocking people at the end, your company screwed me over.

12:13:03 AM Sherrie G.

We're just doing that for security purposes, John. I apologize for any inconvenience.

 

This is a ridiculous response from ebay. I actually think there's a valid legal claim here. A tough one, but potentially valid.

[cheetah]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

The problem with this line of thought is that an auction can suffer from a number of things which cause the price to go lower. For the buyer to "force" the seller to go through isn't unethical at all. Auctions go for lower prices all the time and sellers aren't allowed to back out because they didn't get the price they wanted. This is not a case of not a very large percentage of what he may have gotten anyway.

 

Nobody is trying to game the system, doesn't sound like the buyer knew about the problem beforehand, so how could his ethics be called into question from that standpoint?

 

Let's say (not that this happened here) that the buyer paid immediately, and then the seller comes back and reneges because of the glitch -- the buyer paid in good faith. How do you know that you aren't being lied to? Or that there's some other manipulation because the seller just didn't like the price?

 

The buyer shouldn't be allowed to take advantage, they are simply completing the transaction under the absolute rules of the auction system.

 

For this specific buyer, the problem is the delayed payment and the utter idiocy with which he handled the situation.

 

From a strict factual standpoint, as a I said, the onus falls on the seller to complete and then pursue a remedy with the 3rd party who has wronged him.

 

I'm reminded of Amazon's recent listing of various comic omnibi at $9.99 when the list price was what, around $100. Boardies thrilled at the chance to take advantage of the error and then complained when Amazon quit honoring the price.

[Foolkiller]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

Was the winning bid really that "reduced", it was the same as the last sale according to GPA. And how was this buyer trying to take advantage of the seller?

 

Just like losing your wallet and someone finding it. They have a choice to return it or steal your money. The guy knew the situation and still wanted to take advantage of it.

 

As I said above, this isn't really a fair analogy to a wallet being lost because there are a ton of variables in an auction that you can't calculate or translate to this scenario. The guy knew of the situation, but is relying on a) the seller being honest and b) ebay doesn't seem to support the seller's claim. Now what is the ethical thing to do? I think both parties owe an ethical obligation. What would the "nice" thing be to do, that's far different.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

Was the winning bid really that "reduced", it was the same as the last sale according to GPA. And how was this buyer trying to take advantage of the seller?

 

Just like losing your wallet and someone finding it. They have a choice to return it or steal your money. The guy knew the situation and still wanted to take advantage of it.

 

How do we know that the next 8.0 won't sell for less?

 

The buyer committed $14K+ to this copy. It makes sense that they would be upset if the seller was going to cancel the transaction.

 

 

[zuckuss2003]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties. While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

The buyer doesn't lose a penny out of the deal. He just doesn't get a book at a artificially reduced price due to the incompetence of the auction house. While it is common for people to try to take advantage of a situation like this, I think it would be unethical to insist that the seller go through with the deal. It would be just like someone on the board making a typo when listing a book and having someone snatch it up before the typo could be corrected. With all the talk in this forum about ethics in comics, and people trying to game the system, it strikes me as a bit hypocritical for people to think the buyer should be allowed to take advantage of the seller in a situation like this.

 

Was the winning bid really that "reduced", it was the same as the last sale according to GPA. And how was this buyer trying to take advantage of the seller?

 

Just like losing your wallet and someone finding it. They have a choice to return it or steal your money. The guy knew the situation and still wanted to take advantage of it.

 

To be fair, the guy knew only what he was told in an email by another guy trying to cancel his auction win.

[mndb369]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Agreed - 100%. If the auction was run and processed legitimately the book would have been fairly won. It wasn't - the bidding process was flawed and eBay is at fault. They could have waived Final Value fees on several of his auctions and reversed most of the loss in fee credit.

 

They and PayPal are scum. They restrict communication (blocking emails and phone numbers), freeze funds for no reason (I had them try to hold $1300 from a BIN sale recently because I had a Star Rating below 20 - eventhough my Feedback was 100%. I told them to pound salt. Cancelled the payment and had the buyer send it to me as a non-ebay purchase payment. ! They lost their fees because they were going to hold it for 4-6 weeks. Suck it PayPal.

 

I feel for the buyer but this was an artificial win. Good on you for holding your ground John.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I'm finding it hard to believe anyone really thinks John should have gone ahead with the deal. Ebay obviously screwed the pooch on this one and it's not John's responsibility to eat the loss. It's Ebay's responsibility to fix it. The buyer just has to deal with the loss.

 

Why is it the buyer who just has to eat it?

 

Because he didn't win it legitimately.

 

I agree Ebay has the responsibility to fix it, but if a bid is a legally binding agreement, then it's binding on both parties.

 

Not when there are issues that prevent other, just as legally binding bids from being entered.

 

The rules exist to free man, not enslave him.

 

While ebay's system didn't work properly with some screening function, the legitimate bidder still bid and won following all of the rules and terms. This is an imperfect solution, but my opinion is that (and this is all technical) the transaction should have completed, information collected regarding ebay's failures, the evidence indicating the item would have sold but for ebay's failure, ebay owes a duty to the seller to insure each listing would have complete functionality, or they owe restitution to the seller for the difference in the amount of the highest maximum bid that was attempted to be placed.

 

 

And what about the bidders who couldn't bid?

 

Does TF just sue eBay at the GPA 90 day avg difference?