Mound City Auctions

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

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.

 

What if my wife thinks the girls are hot too?

[VintageComics]

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

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

You're just interested in stirring the pot. You reap as you sow. Enjoy it.

 

 

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.

 

What if my wife thinks the girls are hot too?

 

I'm betting your wife is not the only girl that thinks girls are hot

 

...and that's my point exactly - morality is relative to the individual.

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

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

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

 

 

Sure it does. All I see is spin from you. Is that your thing?

 

You're not fooling anybody.

[LetThereBeComics-migration]

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

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

You're just interested in stirring the pot. You reap as you sow. Enjoy it.

 

 

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.

 

What if my wife thinks the girls are hot too?

 

I'm betting your wife is not the only girl that thinks girls are hot

 

...and that's my point exactly - morality is relative to the individual.

 

 

Your point is moot.

[VintageComics]

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

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

 

 

Sure it does. All I see is spin from you. Is that your thing?

 

You're not fooling anybody.

 

Please explain what I'm spinning and who and I'm trying to fool?

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Your point is moot.

 

Not when you are philosophically discussing morals and ethics.

 

And not nearly as moot as bringing up the term shill bidding in this discussion when the item was not going to sell anyway. It had not met reserve.

 

It's similar to shill bidding but it's not shill bidding.

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

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

 

What does that picture you posted have to do with what I wrote? Nothing, that's what.

 

 

 

Sure it does. All I see is spin from you. Is that your thing?

 

You're not fooling anybody.

 

Please explain what I'm spinning and who and I'm trying to fool?

 

 

 

Nice try.

 

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent

 

Please don't attempt to highjack this thread. It's very disrespectful. Again, you're not fooling anybody.

[fantastic_four]

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?

 

They claimed earlier in the thread that the book owners had the option of selling a book to the higher bidder when books didn't meet the reserve, and that's what happened in bluechip's case.

 

No auction houses in comics do this. Mound City claimed earlier it's common in other types of auctions. Maybe they're right, dunno. Not a fan of that concept myself from what I've heard of it so far, but I'm not sure, perhaps it does make sense from a perspective I'm not seeing. It doesn't look like something their online bidding company had much support for to make it clear to buyers that bidding below the reserve could still cause them to end up winning the auction. Or maybe the emails from the online bidding company did say that and bluechip overlooked it, not sure.

[bluechip]

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?

 

They claimed earlier in the thread that the book owners had the option of selling a book to the higher bidder when books didn't meet the reserve, and that's what happened in bluechip's case.

 

No auction houses in comics do this. Mound City claimed earlier it's common in other types of auctions. Maybe they're right, dunno. Not a fan of that concept myself from what I've heard of it so far, but I'm not sure, perhaps it does make sense from a perspective I'm not seeing. It doesn't look like something their online bidding company had much support for to make it clear to buyers that bidding below the reserve could still cause them to end up winning the auction. Or maybe the emails from the online bidding company did say that and bluechip overlooked it, not sure.

 

I have no problem with people selling a book under reserve. But the way to do it is this:

 

real bidder bids against seller.

 

Seller REFRAINS from bidding again. Sees no other REAL bids are coming in and agrees to take the last bid.

 

That is not what happened.

 

In this case, the seller BID again. And then withdrew it.

 

Makes a big difference. Makes all the difference.

 

 

 

[fantastic_four]

I have no problem with people selling a book under reserve. But the way to do it is this:

 

real bidder bids against seller.

 

Seller REFRAINS from bidding again. Sees no other REAL bids are coming in and agrees to take the last bid.

 

That is not what happened.

 

In this case, the seller BID again. And then withdrew it.

 

Makes a big difference. Makes all the difference.

 

This would work if Mound City were running their own auction software, but they weren't, they were using a third-party generic auctioning site, I forget the name of it now. Given that they didn't have access to your high bid, what other way would they have had to even see that high bid? It makes sense to me that the online auctioning company wouldn't let auction operators see everyone's bid amounts to prevent outright shilling, so for Mound City to implement a policy of selling a book to the high bidder, the bidding up slowly to discover your high bid was the only way they may have had to do it.

 

If selling to a high bidder under a reserve is as common as Mound City claims in this thread, you'd think that auction site they used a few years ago would allow auctioneers to see bid amounts under the reserve. I'm guessing they didn't since the auctioneer's wife had to creep her bids up to figure out what the high bids were.

[Kreton]

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?

 

They claimed earlier in the thread that the book owners had the option of selling a book to the higher bidder when books didn't meet the reserve, and that's what happened in bluechip's case.

 

No auction houses in comics do this. Mound City claimed earlier it's common in other types of auctions. Maybe they're right, dunno. Not a fan of that concept myself from what I've heard of it so far, but I'm not sure, perhaps it does make sense from a perspective I'm not seeing. It doesn't look like something their online bidding company had much support for to make it clear to buyers that bidding below the reserve could still cause them to end up winning the auction. Or maybe the emails from the online bidding company did say that and bluechip overlooked it, not sure.

 

I have no problem with people selling a book under reserve. But the way to do it is this:

 

real bidder bids against seller.

 

Seller REFRAINS from bidding again. Sees no other REAL bids are coming in and agrees to take the last bid.

 

That is not what happened.

 

In this case, the seller BID again. And then withdrew it.

 

Makes a big difference. Makes all the difference.

 

 

 

I never like reserves but realize they are out there. I attend many antique, estate, collectible type auctions throughout my state and reserves are generally handled a bit differently than handled here.

 

Bids are typically advanced organically, i.e. through actual interested bidders, and not through the owner or auction house on behalf of the owner. If the reserve is not met, many times, the auctioneer will simply state that we need X amount of dollars to meet the reserve or will confer with the owner to see if they will accept the high bid.

 

What is key in both examples is that the bids are advanced by interested parties and not the owner or on the owner's behalf.

[fantastic_four]

I never like reserves but realize they are out there. I attend many antique, estate, collectible type auctions throughout my state and reserves are generally handled a bit differently than handled here.

 

Bids are typically advanced organically, i.e. through actual interested bidders, and not through the owner or auction house on behalf of the owner. If the reserve is not met, many times, the auctioneer will simply state that we need X amount of dollars to meet the reserve or will confer with the owner to see if they will accept the high bid.

 

What is key in both examples is that the bids are advanced by interested parties and not the owner or on the owner's behalf.

 

The difference for Mound City is that I'm guessing that they did not have the ability to see high bid amounts from Internet bidders via the iCollector auctioning site they held the online portion of the auction on. If that's the case, it was a poor choice to both use iCollector and to try to enforce that auction rule given the site's lack of support for it.

[comeaux]

In this case, the seller BID again. And then withdrew it.

 

Makes a big difference. Makes all the difference.

 

THIS is where the chicanery lies (thumbs u

[Kreton]

I never like reserves but realize they are out there. I attend many antique, estate, collectible type auctions throughout my state and reserves are generally handled a bit differently than handled here.

 

Bids are typically advanced organically, i.e. through actual interested bidders, and not through the owner or auction house on behalf of the owner. If the reserve is not met, many times, the auctioneer will simply state that we need X amount of dollars to meet the reserve or will confer with the owner to see if they will accept the high bid.

 

What is key in both examples is that the bids are advanced by interested parties and not the owner or on the owner's behalf.

 

The difference for Mound City is that I'm guessing that they did not have the ability to see high bid amounts from Internet bidders via the iCollector auctioning site they held the online portion of the auction on. If that's the case, it was a poor choice to both use iCollector and to try to enforce that auction rule given the site's lack of support for it.

 

If there were multiple competing bids via internet bidding or genuine in house bidders the bid would advance without the assistance of the auction house. If there were no other bidders aside from the OP, then the bid would stop. At that point, the owner would either have a no sale or decide if the true high bid was acceptable.

 

Either that or simply start the bid at the reserve and see if there is any interest.

 

 

[Dr. Love]

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.

 

 

As far as the legal obligation part on the part of the underbidder, that is the crux of the matter. Mike Bradley, who Mound City refers to as a source of information on the auction process, has an informative post that references this subject, "So Your Bid Is Irrevocable?":

 

http://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/your-bid-is-irrevocable/

 

 

"Natalie correctly references state law in every state in the United States (Louisiana by practice, rather than expression) that the UCC 2-328 (3) says:

 

Such a sale is with reserve unless the goods are in explicit terms put up without reserve. In an auction with reserve the auctioneer may withdraw the goods at any time until he announces completion of the sale. In an auction without reserve, after the auctioneer calls for bids on an article or lot, that article or lot cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time. In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer’s announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder’s retraction does not revive any previous bid. "

 

Now Rob Lite or Classic - can you provide text of any sort, pulled from either your terms or any legal reference, that speak to the obligation of a bidder behind the pulled bid? Clearly Bradley's text implies that the very act of a new bid kills or closes any prior bid and so releases any prior contractual obligation.

 

Please confine your remarks if possible to this aspect and this aspect only. If only applicable to your state, so be it. Whether 3 years or 30 years ago, I believe this is the point of "auction law" we could all use some clarification on.

[fantastic_four]

If there were multiple competing bids via internet bidding or genuine in house bidders the bid would advance without the assistance of the auction house. If there were no other bidders aside from the OP, then the bid would stop. At that point, the owner would either have a no sale or decide if the true high bid was acceptable.

 

The iCollector auction site probably gave Mound City no built-in way to determine what that high bid was for the owner to even determine if it was acceptable.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Were the reserve rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

 

Were Bid withdrawal rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

If a bid after mine is withdrawn, I expect to be able to withdraw mine also.

 

In the video, it is not clear that the wife is bidding up the reserve (she is never pictured). Unless it is absolutely clear that the incremental bids are coming from the reserve, rather than another live bidder, this would make a significant difference in bidding strategy.

[Dr. Love]

Were the reserve rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

 

Were Bid withdrawal rules specifically laid out in the auction terms?

If a bid after mine is withdrawn, I expect to be able to withdraw mine also.

 

In the video, it is not clear that the wife is bidding up the reserve (she is never pictured). Unless it is absolutely clear that the incremental bids are coming from the reserve, rather than another live bidder, this would make a significant difference in bidding strategy.

 

That is the thing. Mound City seems to be saying that a) the law allows for a bid to be withdrawn until the item is sold or withdrawn and so b) if agent withdraws bid, and the bid behind that was not withdrawn in kind then c) underbid behind the withdrawn bid is a live bid and obligated.

 

It all comes down to is © valid or not. And this should be an absolute no brainer to validate. The implications are explosive enough that the auction house should be able to show a scan in two seconds flat of boilerplate where the line referencing this point is bold bold bold cannot be missed bold.

 

If they can't produce it (easily, quickly), I'd wager a small amount it doesn't exist. I'll be asking Bradley to weigh in on this as well.

[comeaux]

This whole thing

[G.A.tor]

Your point is moot.

 

Not when you are philosophically discussing morals and ethics.

 

And not nearly as moot as bringing up the term shill bidding in this discussion when the item was not going to sell anyway. It had not met reserve.

 

It's similar to shill bidding but it's not shill bidding.

 

I was bored, so I read some of the thread, and the most widely accepted definition of shill bidding is:

Definition: Shill bidding is the act of bidding on your own auction against other bidders in order to raise the price at which your item will eventually sell.

Given that the auction house did bid on (or bid for) someone to raise the price that marvel 1 sold for, seems to clearly meet the definition of shill bidding... all I have to say (thumbs u