posted on October 17, 2000 04:30:16 AM newIf it is that close to being a diamond, what difference does it make? Only in this materialist society. The fact that it is a diamond or a piece of glass hardly matters. If you never knew it wasn't a diamond, then what difference would it make?
I'd suggest that the "overly materialistic" party here is the seller, who is so damned greedy that he resorts to deception. Otherwise, if it's NOT a diamond, but it doesn't makke any difference, why doesn't the seller simply state that it's not a diamond?
Because, of course, he knows nobody will pay diamond prices for a piece of glass - and the only way he can realize those diamond prices he wants is to commit fraud.
Then, based on the seller's misrepresentations, bidder shells out $1500 for something the marketplace deems is worth $15. He may be a reseller. He may be an investor. He may simply like good quality and be willing to pay for it.
This business of "these rich SOBs deserve/can afford it" is a red herring. Would the bidder "deserve it" any less if, say, he represented a charity buying the item for resale to raise funds? If it was a child who broke into his piggybank to get the autograph of his idol? Or a dying husband who wanted to leave his wife/child a memorable gift? Yes, I'm investing in bathos here. The point is that the fraudulent seller doesn't give a damn about whether the bidder "deserves" to get burned. He's not doing this in a high-minded attempt to balance the moral tables. He just wants to get his money, and he doesn't care how.
And who pays? Other sellers, who then have to work their behinds off (time = money) to counter this low-life's bad publicity.
posted on October 17, 2000 05:00:44 AM new
Good Article!
I think this will cause major problems for the future if the plaintiffs win. I think just the sellers should of been cited. But anyone who collects knows that Autographs are dicey at best and they should of known better than to buy. But on the other side, could something good come from a plaintiffs victory?
Ain't Life Grand...
posted on October 17, 2000 05:17:41 AM new
I recently "inherited" an entire inventory of collector comics and cards. In this inventory is a TON of cards that I have seen being sold on E-bay for thousands of dollars, but guess what, I haven't gotten that money. Turns out there are "Grading" companies charge $10-$25 for EACH card or comic to be "Certified" (usually another $10 for shipping too.) Great concept with a few snags - but isn't there always- one Company has their own price guide magazine plus sells these same graded cards, (little to close to their home for me), then there is the price. I can't afford to send out thousands of cards to be graded in the hopes of hitting it big, so I have to be selective. My Roy Campenella is going to be certified, (last one on e-bay went for over $2,000. a $25 investment is acceptable) but had three auctions close lately with what the card magazines listed in the hundreds of dollar zone, but the most one sold for was $26 SO the people who know their memorabilia, know what to buy. Guess it does go back to buyer beware. BUT it doesn't mean that E-Bay should turn a blind eye to offenders!
posted on October 17, 2000 05:38:14 AM newGuess it does go back to buyer beware. BUT it doesn't mean that E-Bay should turn a blind eye to offenders!
Exactly. Because the more than ebay DOES turn that "blind eye" toward sellers they've repeatedly been told are scammers, the less likely legit sellers are going to have people willing to risk bidding on their goods. That means lower revenues for sellers, which means lower revenues for ebay. It's incredibly short-sighted of ebay NOT to take action in flagrant cases of abuse of any kind.
posted on October 17, 2000 06:10:16 AM new
The whole issue is that the buyers and sellers exercise personal responsibility. eBay's liability is to provide a place to sell. They have no real legal authority beyond kicking bad sellers and bidders off eBay or shutting down bad auctions.
My point before about who we judge responsible was to state that we frequently think we can litigate or legislate our way out of situations that we deliberately dig ourselves into. Too bad eBay doesn't build a screen that says: "Please engage brain before entering and using this website"
posted on October 17, 2000 11:22:17 AM new
eBay must maintain the defense of being a "venue" as opposed to being a service provider to skirt this type of liability.
However, it is highly unlikely eBay will be able to do this. As a service provider, once put on notice of actionable activity, eBay must act.
As far as " buyer beware ", this hasn't been a standard of consumer business practice in over a century. In fact, this type of reasoning would mean the destruction of many markets. Consumer confidence builds markets and business. A "buyer beware" mantle would bring to a complete halt the trading of autograph memorabilia, as well as much else. Perhaps Firestone/Bridgestone should plead buyer beware for their tires flying apart? Consumers must have the security that goods and services meet the standard of intended and advertised purpose and are not inheirently dangerous. The Internet begs the question of who is to be the gatekeeper ? It is clearly the service provider who is in the position to do this.
If the facts of the case are accurate as stated in the press, then the sellers in this case weren't even suspended until they were indicted by the FBI.
eBay should be as responsible and as active as any other service provider, which includes investigation and removal of items/vendors once brought to their attention.
