Mound City Auctions

[HouseofComics.Com]

We don't bid in our own auctions. We also don't use reserves, and probably never will. If a seller in one of our auctions wants a guaranteed minimum price, I'd rather set that as the starting bid instead of setting a reserve. More transparent and bidder friendly.

 

Good to know.

 

Something I found interesting from Mike Brandly, the auction expert/blogger that Mound City referenced earlier:

 

Auction bidders detest the seller (the owner) bidding on property in which they (the bidders) are interested. Few things deter bidders from an auction to any larger degree than sellers bidding, or otherwise protecting their property from bidders.

 

http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/can-the-seller-bid-at-auction/

[Designer Toast]

Look, we need to get something straight here right now. Slander means by spoken word, libel means by print or on the Internet. If you're going to invoke legal jargon, at least know what it actually means.

 

I thinks it is crazy to allow an owner of an item or an employee of an auction house to bid on anything. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should.

[miraclemet]

...More transparent and bidder friendly.

 

this sounds like a business model destined for failure..

 

signed,

sarcastic happy mycomicshop customer

(thumbs u

[joecgcmaniac]

@ Mound City:

 

"I believe what Classic is referring to here is the Uniform Commercial Code as it relates to sales performed by auction. I would be very careful using terms like Material Concealment, negligent misrepresentation, and Fraud".

 

Why would you suggest being "careful" - especially since they fall under Tort Law?Again, for amplification, I suggest you speak with your attorney.

 

They're just suggesting being "careful" because they think by throwing out random legal jargon, that'll we'll all cower in fear and just take them at their word. (thumbs u

 

 

 

[slym2none]

I am always careful.

 

Thanks though, MoundCity!

 

 

 

 

-slym

[Comicopolis]

The seller advanced one bid further, trying to get me to bid higher,. And then, only after seeing that no further bids were coming, withdrew his last bid. (and none of the others before it)

 

This is the crux of the matter.

 

This wasn't an effort to set a reserve, but rather an attempt to squeeze every drop out of the real bidder.

 

It might be legal, but any company who thinks this might be right...well, I'd be wary of every business decision they made.

 

Indeed. And question those who defend such things.

[Comicopolis]

Okay, I just got home, and now I'm going to try and put this mess to bed.

 

Bluechip registered and participated in a comic book auction we held in 2010. At this auction, we sold a copy of Marvel #1. The copy was in pretty terrible shape, and ended up being graded as NG. The owner placed a reserve on the comic. We offered the comic at the auction along with many other comics from a wide variety of consignors - some of those books had reserves, most did not.

 

The auction in question was a live simulcast sale - there were people bidding in person at a facility we rented for the sale, and people participating through online bidding provided by Proxibid and if I recall correctly, Auctionzip Live. Bluechip was participating via Proxibid's web based bidding application. I was one of the employees running that application.

 

When we signed the contract with the consignor who provided us with the copy of Marvel #1, it laid out the rules we as the auction company and he as the consignor had to follow. One of them was that any reserves had to be submitted to us in writing well in advance of the live auction event. He did that - providing us with a written reserve on the Marvel #1. I believe that Classic was correct when he stated earlier that the amount was roughly $5,700 - but it was nearly 3 years ago, so I might be off by a small amount. Regardless, the reserve was submitted both legally, and according to our contract. The seller did not give us permission to publicly state his reserve amount before the auction took place.

 

The video showing the sale of the comic has already been posted. If you haven't watched it, go do so. The original complaint we received from Bluechip has also already been posted in this thread.

 

The reserve placed on this comic was not met during the live bidding. The fact that the book had a reserve was PATENTLY obvious - just watch the video, or read the earlier posts here - I won't belabor that point any further. For Bluechip to claim he was unaware there had been a reserve on the comic is simply something we cannot be responsible for - we fully disclosed that fact both in the internet bidding platform and through the live video feed we provided during the auction event. Once that objection was met, his next complaint was related to the manner in which the reserve was played out. The video we shared before shows precisely how the reserve was bid - live bids from either the floor bidders or from the participants online were received by the auctioneer, then the reserve was bid by a staff member - the auctioneer's wife in this instance. I understand that this can seem disconcerting to people not used to it. But look at it this way - there was an established reserve on that book - I don't believe anyone doubts me on that issue. The bidding reached by the crowd (whether in person or online) did not come close to the number needed for that book to sell. So the bidding was advanced to determine the highest bid the public would go to - the fair market value for the item. Once this point was reached, it was still lower than the reserve on the book. At that point, the auctioneer had not closed the sale of that item - he did not say sold, and he did not indicate otherwise that the lot had been either sold or passed - again, see the video for proof. Instead, in order to fulfill his duty to the client - the owner of the comic - he asked if the owner was willing to lower his reserve to the amount the bidder had offered in his most recent bid. The owner accepted Bluechip's offer, and the auctioneer announced the sale, closing the contract. Without us bidding the reserve, the comic would have never reached the bid it did, and the seller would in no way have accepted the lower bid for the book. It is our job to act as an intercessory agent between the buyer and the seller, to procure bids to present to the seller for their goods. If the seller has stated as this one did, that they will not accept a bid lower than a certain amount, it is in our best interest, as well as the sellers best interest AND THE BUYERS BEST INTEREST to try and find a price that is acceptable to both parties.

 

In response to an earlier question - yes, the above method of handling reserves is VERY common in other auctions in other segments of the auction industry. Additionally, it was explained in the terms and conditions of the sale which Bluechip agreed to by registering and by participating in the auction - in no uncertain terms.

 

That all being said, we have already changed the manner in which we sell comics - remember, this complaint by Bluechip was in regards to an auction that took place nearly 3 years ago. Currently, we have 2 distinct venues in which we sell comics. Lower value comics (whether due to condition or to their being Modern comics) are sold in our monthly consignment auctions - either in bulk lots of low value books (sold by the box to local bidders without internet bidding provided) or in grouped lots (typically between 10 to 100 comics) with online pre-bidding (absentee bidding provided through Bidopia). Comics with values higher than those sold during these monthly consignment auctions are scheduled for our quarterly Marquee Comic Auctions, which are held as online only auctions similar to an eBay style auction, but with linked soft close - the lots automatically extend when bids are placed within the last 5 minutes of the end of the item (typically extending by 5 minutes) and these time extensions are linked amongst similar books (typically grouped by title - so for example if someone bids on a copy of ASM #1 in the last 5 minutes, it would extend the time on that lot as well as other ASM books in the same auction).

 

With our current selling method being online only, the issue of reserves being bid by representatives of Mound City Auctions at comic book auctions should be laid to rest. Our monthly consignment sales are primarily for bulk lots of lower value comics, and to the best of my knowledge in the past 12 months of doing those sales, we have not had a reserve placed on any book sold during those monthly consignment auctions, rendering those auctions a non-issue in regards to reserve bidding.

 

As far as posting ads on this section of the board, I'll inform Classic not to do so in the future, and see if I can have him edit and remove that post - I can't speak for him, but I'm sure it wasn't an intentional violation of board rules, we simply don't post on here all that often - so my apologies on that one. Future advertisements will go in the correct place here.

 

Finally - at least for this post - I'm well aware that some of you have had bad experiences dealing with us in the past - whether it was shipping concerns from the auction in 2009 (which I'll note, we made strenuous efforts to correct that I'm certain at least some forum members will remember) or related to posts made by people who were unsatisfied that they bid more than they intended and didn't read the terms and conditions they agreed to follow, and thus had a bad sale with us, or simply those who have met us in person and aren't impressed. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion - and I am WELL aware that I'm simply not going to cut the mustard with all of you. And that's fine - I could spend all my time trying to please everyone on this board, and what I'd end up with is some very big headaches and a lot of time used up that could have probably been spent better elsewhere. I know I can't make all of you happy - but I can tell you this. I'm trying to do the best that I can to make our sales as good as they can possibly be. I'm not Comiclink, Comicconnect, Heritage, Hakes, Christie's, Sotheby's, or anybody else for that matter. I'm one of 5 people who comprise a small auction house in the midwest. We stumbled into a world class collection of books back in 2009, we did the best we could to sell them, we learned a lot and we are still learning.

 

To our credit, we haven't had a single complaint about shipping since the first comic auction, and we've had several since then.

 

You say you are learning, yet you keep saying the issue is about something that it's not about.

 

This is not about whether I knew there was a reserve. I never said that my complaint hinged on whether there was or wasn't a reserve.

 

And I never said my complaint hinged on whether or not a seller can bid on their own auctions.

 

I have always said that my complaint was that the seller was able to BID and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

Again.

 

I have always said that my complaint hinged on the fact that the seller was able to BID and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

As another poster put very well, it is the "crux" of the entire situation. Yet you keep dancing around it and portraying it as something else.

 

Maybe another time will help the focus?

 

I have always said that my complaint is hinged on the fact that the seller was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

 

Saying that I paid for it, implying all is well, is also misleading. I had already paid for books that I did not dispute, and I was told that Mound city would keep that money and not send the books I had paid for. Among other threats. And I was insulted in a childish manner.

 

You see people here saying they feel it is not a good thing to have a buyer OUTBID another bidder and then WITHDRAW that bid, yet despite protestations of "learning" you keep dodging that issue, and from what I have seen you doggedly refuse to acknowledge in the slightest way that they have a point.

 

Which doesn't surprise me. Because when I made that same point, I was threatened and called, among other things, a Knuckle dragg(er)" for not recognizing, presumably, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a seller bidding and being able to withdraw his last bid.

 

And, I presume, that anyone here who feels the same is also a knuckle dragger, as well.

 

The heels-dug-in at all costs and irrationally stubborn oppositional behavior of 3 years ago seems not to have abated today, despite any protestations that "we are still learning"

 

Before you answer, with another post talking about how you disclosed there was a reserve, let me repeat, so it is clear.

 

It is not about the reserve or whether that was obvious or not

 

It is not about whether a seller can bid on their own items.

 

It is about the fact that the seller was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

 

 

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

It must be considered acceptable in some circles because many auction houses (not just one or two) use the practice.

 

Does anyone have a list of (comic) auction houses that are allowed to bid on their own auctions? Right now all I know is Mound City in Missouri and Heritage in Texas. Any others? Is Clink in a state that allows this? Comic Connect? Hakes? BidStart? Mycomicshop is in Texas, anyone know their policy?

 

 

We don't bid in our own auctions. We also don't use reserves, and probably never will. If a seller in one of our auctions wants a guaranteed minimum price, I'd rather set that as the starting bid instead of setting a reserve. More transparent and bidder friendly.

 

You mean you're legally allowed to shill bid your own auctions but you don't? What's this world coming to?

 

And I knew you would answer either way (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

yeah. still wondering bout owners bidding, and subsequently removing bids. Can't quite compute.

 

It didn't for me when I posted earlier, but I was unaware of two things--one, that his high bid was under the reserve, and two, that they were selling books that didn't meet reserve to the high bidder under the reserve. No other current comics auction house does this, so it's not practice I'm familiar with. I can see why the auctioneer's wife had to bid over and over to find out the high under-reserve amount--it would have been the only way to find the high bid for online bidders. I have less problem with what they did knowing the full story.

 

Heritage does the exact same thing with two exceptions--they don't sell books that don't meet reserve to the high bidder under the reserve, and they also don't place multiple bids under the reserve seeking out the high bidder's bid. However, Heritage wouldn't have to if they decided to start selling to high under-reserve bidders--they own their auctioning system, so they could find the high bid if they wanted to without multiple incremental bids. Mound City had no access to the data in the online bidding system they were using, so they had to bid manually in increments seeking out the high bid.

 

I'm not a fan of selling books that don't meet reserve to high under-reserve bidders, but it's not clearly the "sham" I described earlier before I knew bluechip's book didn't meet reserve. It does have the appearance of unethical behavior since an employee of Mound City is bidding the price up, so I hope they don't still plan to do it whenever they put reserves on auctions in the future. It wouldn't affect me because I take responsibility for bids by never entering one in I'm not willing to pay, but I could see a seller setting auctions at very high reserves as a way to stretch bidders to a high price as they search for the reserve. Allowing people to retract bids is another matter and can lead to unethical behavior with sellers anonymously bidding their own items up and then retracting those bids, so I hope they're not still allowing that.

[Timely]

Okay, I just got home, and now I'm going to try and put this mess to bed.

 

Bluechip registered and participated in a comic book auction we held in 2010. At this auction, we sold a copy of Marvel #1. The copy was in pretty terrible shape, and ended up being graded as NG. The owner placed a reserve on the comic. We offered the comic at the auction along with many other comics from a wide variety of consignors - some of those books had reserves, most did not.

 

The auction in question was a live simulcast sale - there were people bidding in person at a facility we rented for the sale, and people participating through online bidding provided by Proxibid and if I recall correctly, Auctionzip Live. Bluechip was participating via Proxibid's web based bidding application. I was one of the employees running that application.

 

When we signed the contract with the consignor who provided us with the copy of Marvel #1, it laid out the rules we as the auction company and he as the consignor had to follow. One of them was that any reserves had to be submitted to us in writing well in advance of the live auction event. He did that - providing us with a written reserve on the Marvel #1. I believe that Classic was correct when he stated earlier that the amount was roughly $5,700 - but it was nearly 3 years ago, so I might be off by a small amount. Regardless, the reserve was submitted both legally, and according to our contract. The seller did not give us permission to publicly state his reserve amount before the auction took place.

 

The video showing the sale of the comic has already been posted. If you haven't watched it, go do so. The original complaint we received from Bluechip has also already been posted in this thread.

 

The reserve placed on this comic was not met during the live bidding. The fact that the book had a reserve was PATENTLY obvious - just watch the video, or read the earlier posts here - I won't belabor that point any further. For Bluechip to claim he was unaware there had been a reserve on the comic is simply something we cannot be responsible for - we fully disclosed that fact both in the internet bidding platform and through the live video feed we provided during the auction event. Once that objection was met, his next complaint was related to the manner in which the reserve was played out. The video we shared before shows precisely how the reserve was bid - live bids from either the floor bidders or from the participants online were received by the auctioneer, then the reserve was bid by a staff member - the auctioneer's wife in this instance. I understand that this can seem disconcerting to people not used to it. But look at it this way - there was an established reserve on that book - I don't believe anyone doubts me on that issue. The bidding reached by the crowd (whether in person or online) did not come close to the number needed for that book to sell. So the bidding was advanced to determine the highest bid the public would go to - the fair market value for the item. Once this point was reached, it was still lower than the reserve on the book. At that point, the auctioneer had not closed the sale of that item - he did not say sold, and he did not indicate otherwise that the lot had been either sold or passed - again, see the video for proof. Instead, in order to fulfill his duty to the client - the owner of the comic - he asked if the owner was willing to lower his reserve to the amount the bidder had offered in his most recent bid. The owner accepted Bluechip's offer, and the auctioneer announced the sale, closing the contract. Without us bidding the reserve, the comic would have never reached the bid it did, and the seller would in no way have accepted the lower bid for the book. It is our job to act as an intercessory agent between the buyer and the seller, to procure bids to present to the seller for their goods. If the seller has stated as this one did, that they will not accept a bid lower than a certain amount, it is in our best interest, as well as the sellers best interest AND THE BUYERS BEST INTEREST to try and find a price that is acceptable to both parties.

 

In response to an earlier question - yes, the above method of handling reserves is VERY common in other auctions in other segments of the auction industry. Additionally, it was explained in the terms and conditions of the sale which Bluechip agreed to by registering and by participating in the auction - in no uncertain terms.

 

That all being said, we have already changed the manner in which we sell comics - remember, this complaint by Bluechip was in regards to an auction that took place nearly 3 years ago. Currently, we have 2 distinct venues in which we sell comics. Lower value comics (whether due to condition or to their being Modern comics) are sold in our monthly consignment auctions - either in bulk lots of low value books (sold by the box to local bidders without internet bidding provided) or in grouped lots (typically between 10 to 100 comics) with online pre-bidding (absentee bidding provided through Bidopia). Comics with values higher than those sold during these monthly consignment auctions are scheduled for our quarterly Marquee Comic Auctions, which are held as online only auctions similar to an eBay style auction, but with linked soft close - the lots automatically extend when bids are placed within the last 5 minutes of the end of the item (typically extending by 5 minutes) and these time extensions are linked amongst similar books (typically grouped by title - so for example if someone bids on a copy of ASM #1 in the last 5 minutes, it would extend the time on that lot as well as other ASM books in the same auction).

 

With our current selling method being online only, the issue of reserves being bid by representatives of Mound City Auctions at comic book auctions should be laid to rest. Our monthly consignment sales are primarily for bulk lots of lower value comics, and to the best of my knowledge in the past 12 months of doing those sales, we have not had a reserve placed on any book sold during those monthly consignment auctions, rendering those auctions a non-issue in regards to reserve bidding.

 

As far as posting ads on this section of the board, I'll inform Classic not to do so in the future, and see if I can have him edit and remove that post - I can't speak for him, but I'm sure it wasn't an intentional violation of board rules, we simply don't post on here all that often - so my apologies on that one. Future advertisements will go in the correct place here.

 

Finally - at least for this post - I'm well aware that some of you have had bad experiences dealing with us in the past - whether it was shipping concerns from the auction in 2009 (which I'll note, we made strenuous efforts to correct that I'm certain at least some forum members will remember) or related to posts made by people who were unsatisfied that they bid more than they intended and didn't read the terms and conditions they agreed to follow, and thus had a bad sale with us, or simply those who have met us in person and aren't impressed. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion - and I am WELL aware that I'm simply not going to cut the mustard with all of you. And that's fine - I could spend all my time trying to please everyone on this board, and what I'd end up with is some very big headaches and a lot of time used up that could have probably been spent better elsewhere. I know I can't make all of you happy - but I can tell you this. I'm trying to do the best that I can to make our sales as good as they can possibly be. I'm not Comiclink, Comicconnect, Heritage, Hakes, Christie's, Sotheby's, or anybody else for that matter. I'm one of 5 people who comprise a small auction house in the midwest. We stumbled into a world class collection of books back in 2009, we did the best we could to sell them, we learned a lot and we are still learning.

 

To our credit, we haven't had a single complaint about shipping since the first comic auction, and we've had several since then.

 

You say you are learning, yet you keep saying the issue is about something that it's not about.

 

This is not about whether I knew there was a reserve. I never said that my complaint hinged on whether there was or wasn't a reserve.

 

And I never said my complaint hinged on whether or not a seller can bid on their own auctions.

 

I have always said that my complaint was that the seller was able to BID and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

Again.

 

I have always said that my complaint hinged on the fact that the seller was able to BID and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

As another poster put very well, it is the "crux" of the entire situation. Yet you keep dancing around it and portraying it as something else.

 

Maybe another time will help the focus?

 

I have always said that my complaint is hinged on the fact that the seller was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

 

Saying that I paid for it, implying all is well, is also misleading. I had already paid for books that I did not dispute, and I was told that Mound city would keep that money and not send the books I had paid for. Among other threats. And I was insulted in a childish manner.

 

You see people here saying they feel it is not a good thing to have a buyer OUTBID another bidder and then WITHDRAW that bid, yet despite protestations of "learning" you keep dodging that issue, and from what I have seen you doggedly refuse to acknowledge in the slightest way that they have a point.

 

Which doesn't surprise me. Because when I made that same point, I was threatened and called, among other things, a Knuckle dragg(er)" for not recognizing, presumably, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a seller bidding and being able to withdraw his last bid.

 

And, I presume, that anyone here who feels the same is also a knuckle dragger, as well.

 

The heels-dug-in at all costs and irrationally stubborn oppositional behavior of 3 years ago seems not to have abated today, despite any protestations that "we are still learning"

 

Before you answer, with another post talking about how you disclosed there was a reserve, let me repeat, so it is clear.

 

It is not about the reserve or whether that was obvious or not

 

It is not about whether a seller can bid on their own items.

 

It is about the fact that the seller was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So it sounds like you have a problem with the seller that was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid, is that correct?

[fantastic_four]

So it sounds like you have a problem with the seller that was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid, is that correct?

 

They did it in order to sell it to the high below-reserve bidder though. It's not something I've ever seen in comics--have you, Timely?

[Timely]

So it sounds like you have a problem with the seller that was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid, is that correct?

 

They did it in order to sell it to the high below-reserve bidder though. It's not something I've ever seen in comics--have you, Timely?

 

[fantastic_four]

So it sounds like you have a problem with the seller that was able to bid and then WITHDRAW that bid, is that correct?

 

They did it in order to sell it to the high below-reserve bidder though. It's not something I've ever seen in comics--have you, Timely?

 

Personally, I'd never knowingly bid in an auction where a seller could bid and then WITHDRAW that bid just to bid up the guy who is willing to pay the most. It sounds like the auction is set up so the seller has the advantage over any true buyer.

 

It does sound like a great place to sell an item though, assuming you don't mind morally being in a grey area.

 

They weren't doing that above the reserve, so it's only different from the way Heritage handles their auctions in one significant way--Heritage doesn't sell to the high bidder when an item doesn't meet reserve.

[lizards2]

It sounds a lot like an eBay auction with a reserve. The wife takes that part of the automatic, incremental bid of the bidder. At the end, when no bid breaks reserve, you then get a second chance offer at your highest bid?

 

The only problem in this case was, the second chance offer didn't sound like an offer, but a legal obligation, according to the o.p., replete with threats on what would happen if he did not follow through.

[fantastic_four]

It sounds a lot like an eBay auction with a reserve. The wife takes that part of the automatic, incremental bid of the bidder. At the end, when no bid breaks reserve, you then get a second chance offer at your highest bid?

 

The only problem in this case was, the second chance offer didn't sound like an offer, but a legal obligation, according to the o.p., replete with threats on what would happen if he did not follow through.

 

Yea, the threats three years ago and the threats now are Mound City's biggest mistake by leaps and bounds--there's no surer way to chase your customers away than to threaten them with legal action when they have an issue with the way you're doing business. Good point that E-Bay handles this a bit better by not requiring the below-reserve high bidder to buy an item.

 

I don't doubt that requiring the high bidder below a reserve to buy an auction is legal in Mound City's home state, but it's not something I've seen before. Anyone else know of a major auction house that does things this way? It's counter-intuitive to the concept of a reserve if you can second-guess your auction's reserve at the last moment.

[gaz973]

If it's true that Mound City threatened to keep the books that had already been paid for then their claims of having the legal high ground are also shakey IMHO.

[ChasingKingKirby]

This whole thing is

[VintageComics]

The seller advanced one bid further, trying to get me to bid higher,. And then, only after seeing that no further bids were coming, withdrew his last bid. (and none of the others before it)

 

This is the crux of the matter.

 

This wasn't an effort to set a reserve, but rather an attempt to squeeze every drop out of the real bidder.

 

It might be legal, but any company who thinks this might be right...well, I'd be wary of every business decision they made.

 

Indeed. And question those who defend such things.

 

I'll assume both of your posts are vaguely directed at me since even though I didn't defend the actual practice (remember, I personally disagreed with it) I was really the only person in the entire thread that might have been labelled an apologist. If I'm wrong I apologize in advance.

 

The fact that I personally disagreed with the practice while at the same time philosophically discussing and understanding why it was both used and allowed to happen is being overlooked.

 

I know...incomprehensible to some that someone can disagree with something and still try to want to understand it.

 

Thank god that in this day and age none of us are daily subjected to the quick judgments that are meted out on a chat forum.

 

Morality is a very personal thing. While as a group we can agree on some morality based on upbringing, education and other influences (ie. killing and stealing is "wrong"), we basically pick and choose our own morality individually and people will disagree over another's moral choices. One persons "morality" can be another person's immorality.

 

For example, to put this into perspective, a married man (or a man in a committed relationship) having pictures of hot, young girls in their sig pic could be considered immoral. There is a very large segment of society (and probably more than a few on this chat forum) that would consider that both immoral and distasteful. I know people speak out against girly pics all the time on here. Should business be discontinued with that person because they are making an immoral choice and assume that the rest of their choices may be immoral as well?

 

Or do we as a society allow a little perspective and leeway for people to choose their own morality by giving them some benefit of the doubt?

 

As I said earlier, it's a complex topic with few clear answers.

 

If anything, I hope this thread did more than just explain to people how an auction runs...because I didn't personally participate in the discussion merely to figure out whether Mound City was worth doing business with or not.

 

[ft88]

I'm still confused about MCA explaining how they can withdraw a bid and then force the sale agreement. Is that part of the explanation in the bidders agreement?

 

Is that really common practice in other auction arenas like houses or estate sales?

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

What does posting girly pics have to do with someone being sneaky and taking money from a bidder's pocket?