Theoretical thought, in a Christies (say) auction, can the owner of an item, bid for his own item? Does that have to be public knowledge?. I've not been to an auction and I'm curious.
Pete, you seem to know about this stuff. Does eBay advertise your maximum bid to all potential bidders? If not, why not? What do think is the purpose of the hidden maximum bid? With a mechanism for disclosing a bidders's maximum bid, what do you think the eBay auction process? Do you prefer the idea of a Dutch auction?
Oh go on then I'll bite, though it's clear that you know exactly what the issue is but have chosen to side step it with every post. Of course sellers want to maximise returns, no matter what market they chose to sell in. The idea of a market though is based on fairness. hence things like the weights and measure act and the companies and securities act (insider dealing). Only if a market is seen to be fair will consumers, and sellers for that matter, have confidence and willingly chose it for their business. There are similar laws for auctions in which both shill bidding (artificially inflating the price of goods) and auction rings (artificially keeping the price low) are illegal. The idea of an auction is that the market decides the price. It is if you like the ultimate way to decide on an items value. If the seller has a minimum price they should, (in fact must by law) either start at that price or set a reserve. The fact that someone has a maximum price they are willing to pay does not automatically mean they should pay it. There are many things in life we are willing to do but would prefer not to. For instance if you got a puncture on the road you would be willing to repair it or get a new tyre. C'est la vie. Your argument defends the tyre seller who comes round your house and sticks a nail in your tyre. Would you be upset? Why? You were willing to buy a new one anyway! What our disagreement comes down to is that you think it is acceptable behaviour to bump up the price to by underhand means and I don't. The law agrees with me I'm afraid.
Bought a few things from Forza-Moto myself about 18 months ago & also noticed similar activities at the time, same buyer was winning the auction every time a certain item appeared, he must've bought five or six ride height adjusters before I managed to win one.
It would be simpler in principle, but more inconvenient in practice, if bidders put in actual open bids instead of "maximum" bids. The drawback is, where two or more bidders are competing they would all be put to the trouble of making numerous successive bids in small increments. Such a tedious process would put many of them off. So understandably eBay encourages buyers to cut to the chase straight away and indicate the maximum amount they are actually ready, willing, and able to pay for the item. Such encouragement works best if the amount is, at least theoretically, hidden. Still, it's not exactly top secret and everybody (surely?) knows it can be ascertained. How else could eBay organise the process? They could stick to a basic, simpler bidding process. They could keep "maximum" bids strictly confidential under all circumstances. Or they could do what they do now, which works quite well for most people. I fear there will always be people who try to devise ways of manipulating the system, whatever it is, to their best advantage. And there will always be other people who get outsmarted and whinge about it. What do you think, @Loz ?
No, our disagreement is which behaviour was the more underhand, yours or the other chap's: I think yours. If you are asserting that the events you describe were against the law (are you?), I would like to hear how, what law, or in what respect. Are you suggesting a criminal offence? Or some illegality of a civil nature? What about your own behaviour, bidding Euros93, winning an auction, and refusing to pay up on your own admission - isn't that illegal?
Or put another way 'There will always be unscrupulous people who cheat and try to gain unfair advantages on over honest participants in open markets. And there will always be people who spot it, highlight it and avoid being the victim of fraudulent activity'.
Well there we disagree. I think bidding just in order to gauge my maximum then rebidding to take advantage is more underhand and in fact against eBay rules, English law and is fraudulent behaviour. Are you saying that you disagree and that what N***t did was fine as far as you are concerned. Are you saying if it happened to you you'd happily pay up? Really? Funny old world isn't it. I'll stick some magic beans on ebay later for you. I'm not suggesting anything regarding this particular auction however shill bidding is illegal when it does take place and is punishable by the law yes. A fake eBay bidder in County Durham must pay £5,000 - BBC News No it certainly isn't. I assert that bidder N***t used fraudulent bidding in order to raise my bid. All contracts are null and void when fraud has been used to gain them. Of course if N***t wants to step forward and challenge that I'd welcome it. You wouldn't happen to know him would you?
It seems you are one of those people who like to toss around allegations that other people are "cheating", "illegal", "unfair", "underhand", "fraudulent", etc. for which there is very little justification at all. It has often been said that the thief believes everyone is a thief, the liar thinks everyone is lying. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
eBay originally was a pure auction site. It later introduced "Buy It Now" in order to simplify the purchasing process - which is good for purchasers who want to buy stuff with minimum fuss; it's good for sellers who get a quicker sale; and it's great for eBay, which is the most pertinent point. This is the basis for many marketplaces - an asking price at which the item may be purchased. That's fine. Amazon (and other such sites) advertises a "Buy It Now" price, because it is a marketplace for selling and buying stuff. However, eBay maintains its standing as an auction site. People use the site in part because of the auction aspect. Auctions can be single, sealed-bid affairs ... ascending bid auctions ... descending bids auctions ... etc ...what they aren't, are scams. At least, I understand that they aren't meant to be that. If it's a scam, it is no longer an auction. A "maximum bid" is meant to be a secret in an auction. If the bidder's maximum bid is advertised - by whatever means - the mechanism can no longer be properly described as an "auction". It has become something else. Thus, eBay either needs to block the means by which maximum bids are advertised, or they need to stop calling themselves an auction site. Are we there yet?
Well, make your mind up. Now you are relying on the auction being (allegedly) fraudulent to justify your own behaviour in failing to pay up. But at the same time you are "not suggesting anything [by way of being illegal] regarding this particular auction." So which is it?
I understand the OP's point and I can see why he is unhappy. But if you are prepared to pay x for the item, then that is what it is worth to you. If you don't want to pay that amount, you shouldn't bid it. If you get it for less, that's a bonus. i am reminded of some parable in the Bible (I may be atheist, but remember the stories). In the story, some bloke agrees to work for a certain amount of shekels a day. Then some other geezer shows up and when he is asked for how much he wants for his work, he comes up with a figure about half as much. He is taken on for this amount. The first bloke is incensed. Why should he be doing the same job for half the pay? It is pointed out that he was happy to work for that amount, so why is he complaining? I guess the point of the parable (in as much as I have ever understood it) is that life is intrinsically unfair, but that you have the power to make decisions that affect you. You don't have the power to affect decisions that affect other people. It's a similar scenario to the eBay one quoted. Don't bid a price that you are unhappy to pay. i am doing a bit of Google Adwords at the moment. Talk about lack of transparency. There is also an auction, but you don't know what other people are bidding. So you put in the amount you are happy with. This may be enough, and it may not be, to get the results you want. But you can't complain if you are paying over the odds. You decided the amount it was worth to you and bid it. If not happy, don't participate. But fair dos. If that is how this seller operates and you don't like it, sure - let other people know about it just in case they don't like it either. It's always good to be informed.
"Magic beans"? Now you are referring to a seller who offers for sale some item which is worthless, or worth less than it appears, in order to mislead or trick buyers into paying money for rubbish. That is a remarkably poor analogy for the situation in your case, where you have yourself stated explicitly that you would have been happy to pay Euros 93 for the item and there is no suggestion the item was worthless. If I bid on eBay, like most people I bid what I am prepared to pay and no more. If I pay that sum and the item is as advertised I have no complaint. It's surprising how much you are struggling to grasp this concept.
You are also happy to listen to pirated copies of copyrighted music. When was your moral compass last working?
