Feebay One for the Doorstop Gang

[E7]

Hmmm - not sure a private auction house can state criminal law. I am sure it violates their terms of service, but that cannot convert actions into crimes. I just got out of an airplane, so maybe later I will look it up. It is surely contract law.

Time to call in professor Kingsfield.

[bob turner]

Don't know him. I called in Professor Farnsworth. This might be misrepresentation, and actionable in tort.

Of course nobody would bother - a silly $30 model is not something to get all upset about. But one wonders - what motivates such sellers? Do you suppose that, given the average IQ is right around 100, the seller just doesn't understand what is going on, and figures this is a faster way to sell at $200 (making folks think the cheaper one is a bargain)?

[E7]

Don't know him.

Actually, you probably do: Do a search on "The Paper Chase".

Clue: "At Smith Barney, we make money the old fashioned way: We EARN it!"

[robert.]

There’s nothing illegal about it. Motivation most likely money. By list your item several times. You can keep it on the first page of searches. That seller has a few items listed this way. He must feel this helps his sales.

[bob turner]

Seller is misrepresenting by leading folks to believe there are two. Let me see . . .

Legal Definition of misrepresentation
: an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally
also : an act or instance of making such a representation

[E7]

What these retards don't realize is, the item sells itself. If it is a piece of sh*t, they can have it at the top of every page, and it's still a no sale. In the words of Dionne Warwick: "Walk On By" or in this case scroll on by!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Seller is misrepresenting by leading folks to believe there are two. Let me see . . .

Legal Definition of misrepresentation
: an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally
also : an act or instance of making such a representation

And there you go....

[robert.]

Your assuming he only has 1. Only thing that is 100% is both listings use the same photos. He may have 2 of these items.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Your assuming he only has 1. Only thing that is 100% is both listings use the same photos. He may have 2 of these items.

Buy both and let me know, would you please?

[robert.]

No! I don’t want to be on the hook for $500.

[bob turner]

Here is the scenario: you successfully bid on the $200 kit. Somebody else bids successfully on the $300 kit, ten minutes after your winning bid.

You both have legally binding contracts.

Seller, of course, awards the kit to the $300 guy. You go to court, and your award is the difference -$100. That is called "the benefit of the bargain."

But wait: misrepresentation is a tort, and you may be able to get punitive damages.

Of course, you wouldn't bother for something so insignificant. But there is something wrong with this scenario - the seller probably is unaware of his legal jeopardy. This is of course assuming he has only one kit. He may indeed have two.

[E7]

Here is the scenario: you successfully bid on the $200 kit. Somebody else bids successfully on the $300 kit, ten minutes after your winning bid.

You both have legally binding contracts.

Seller, of course, awards the kit to the $300 guy. You go to court, and your award is the difference -$100. That is called "the benefit of the bargain."

I would call it "the benefit to a thieving shyster!"

But wait: misrepresentation is a tort, and you may be able to get punitive damages.

So you spend a couple grand in legal fees to get a couple hundred P.D.

Of course, you wouldn't bother for something so insignificant. But there is something wrong with this scenario - the seller probably is unaware of his legal jeopardy. This is of course assuming he has only one kit. He may indeed have two.

And if you are REALLY SMART, you will scroll past both of them!

Bob: I am NOT poking fun at you, but simply at the idea that the whole scenario is so silly!

[robert.]

Where would you start litigation? Bidder’s hometown? Seller’s? Or where eBay is incorporated?

[E7]

Where would you start litigation?

Judge Judy

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Where would you start litigation?

Judge Judy

Nah........ Let's get serious - Judge Roy Bean