[TopHat]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

If you list an item for auction and then pull it because you have received an under the table offer (especially when one or more bids have been made), that's bad faith dealing at the low end, and fraud at the high end. It's also a violation with the agreement you have with most auction sites. Makes sense from their perspective because you have just cut them out of most or all of their cut from the sale.

I won a Minichamps tank at a low price in an EBay auction. The next morning the seller claimed that he had broken the item and would not send it. I had him send me pictures of the broken tank. I also checked his feed back. From what I could reasonably pursue on my end, it appeared that he was telling the truth. But of course it's impossible to be certain.

It may be a violation of ebay rules and a violation of the agreement with ebay, but it is not fraud (as against the bidder) to end an auction early...bids or no bids. Any auction can be terminated by the seller before the hammer falls. Bids are offers and the hammer indicates acceptance of the best offer. That's black letter law.

[KG_Jag]

Originally Posted by TopHat

It may be a violation of ebay rules and a violation of the agreement with ebay, but it is not fraud (as against the bidder) to end an auction early...bids or no bids. Any auction can be terminated by the seller before the hammer falls. Bids are offers and the hammer indicates acceptance of the best offer. That's black letter law.

Better check you law books and contract with EBay. Ending an EBay auction early for the purposes of taking a prohibited under the table offer may well be fraud against EBay (which you specifically avoided addressing). Further it may also be seen as fraud against those who are also intended to be protected by said agreement--that is EBay bidders.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

Better check you law books and contract with EBay. Ending an EBay auction early for the purposes of taking a prohibited under the table offer may well be fraud against EBay (which you specifically avoided addressing). Further it may also be seen as fraud against those who are also intended to be protected by said agreement--that is EBay bidders.

You may want to check my earlier post. What I said was, "It may be a violation of ebay rules and a violation of the agreement with ebay, but it is not fraud (as against the bidder) to end an auction early...bids or no bids." The reason I did not address it as completely as you may have liked is quite simple...I do not know the motivation behind the early termination of the auction. And neither do you, unless you are a mind-reader. Therefore, I will not speculate on any potential tort which may or may not be actionable.


But, you may want to check your law books since you seem unclear on the law of contracts. An offer without acceptance of said offer is not a contract. The fall of the hammer indicates acceptance of the highest offer (bid). You should have learned that when you prepared for the bar exam.

Maybe a refresher on privity of contract is in order as well...

[KG_Jag]

Originally Posted by TopHat

You may want to check my earlier post. What I said was, "It may be a violation of ebay rules and a violation of the agreement with ebay, but it is not fraud (as against the bidder) to end an auction early...bids or no bids." The reason I did not address it as completely as you may have liked is quite simple...I do not know the motivation behind the early termination of the auction. And neither do you, unless you are a mind-reader.


But, you may want to check your law books since you seem unclear on the law of contracts. An offer without acceptance of said offer is not a contract. The fall of the hammer indicates acceptance of the highest offer (bid). You should have learned that when you prepared for the bar exam.

Maybe a refresher on privity of contract is in order as well...

If you are also in the legal field, then you will know that this issue is likely controlled by contract--between the lister of the item and EBay and between all registered bidders and EBay. The contract clearly exists between EBay and the lister and between EBay and those registered to bid. By becoming an EBay member and/or by listing an item, the seller has bound himself to EBay contract--offer and acceptance. By signing up and being allowed to bid, the bidder also has a contract with EBay--offer and acceptance.

In almost all such contracts (which in this case is written by EBay), the contract will set forth not only specific provisions and remedies, but also what law (e.g. state) will apply with regard to the contract and transaction. EBay undoubtedly chose both contractual language and a jurisdiction that is highly favorable to its interests.

Have you never heard of third parties being protected by a contract? If not, you probably need a little more CLE.

How do we know why the auction was canceled to accept a prohibited under the table offer? Because the poster said that's what occurred when the EBay lister accepted his under the table offer.

Of course all of this is only a discussion who and how many parties have been defrauded (or more accurately who may a cause of action for civil fraud)--not whether a fraud occurred.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

Have you never heard of third parties being protected by a contract? If not, you probably need a little more CLE.

Please review your hornbook on privity of contract.

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

How do we know why the auction was canceled to accept a prohibited under the table offer? Because the poster said that's what occurred when the EBay lister accepted his under the table offer.

Wrong. In his post, Black 6 said this was speculation:

Originally Posted by Black 6

You may recall many of us were hashing this same thought over an auction (a month or two ago) that ended prematurely on (I believe) a GMP model with no good reason for doing so (speculation was that the seller got an out of Ebay offer he couldn't refuse) while bids were active.

Here's another one. A seller listed a Corgi nightfighter Hurricane at $9.99 (these are much sought after). I was watching bids rise the last couple of days to around $40.00 - which is low, but there are still a few days to go. This morning the seller ended the auction claiming the "model was lost or broken." Say what? All his other listings remain, but the one model that would probably push beyond the $100 mark has mysteriously become "lost or broken" with but days to go? Hmmmmm, I have a hard time buying into that.

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

Of course all of this is only a discussion who and how many parties have been defrauded (or more accurately who may a cause of action for civil fraud)--not whether a fraud occurred.

Actually, it was a discussion about the ethics of ending an auction early while bids were pending.

[KG_Jag]

Read post #12 of this thread. That is the set of facts that formed the basis of my comments that you quoted in your initial response to me.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

Read post #12 of this thread. That is the set of facts that formed the basis of my comments that you quoted in your initial response to me.

Then be more specific when posting, please.


BTW, your post that I responded to was post #9. Nine usually comes before 12, so you could not have possibly been responding to post #12 in your post #9.


I think that will just about do it for now, don't you?

[KG_Jag]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Then be more specific when posting, please.


BTW, your post that I responded to was post #9. Nine usually comes before 12, so you could not have possibly been responding to post #12 in your post #9.


I think that will just about do it for now, don't you?

You're right--I should have directed you to post #6 as well.

But may I suggest that you read the entire thread before jumping in.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by KG_Jag

You're right--I should have directed you to post #6 as well.

But may I suggest that you read the entire thread before jumping in.

Yawn....

You may suggest whatever you want, but without quoting or otherwise indicating the post you are (supposedly) responding to, I guess you expect all of us to be mind readers.

Have you reviewed the law of contracts yet.....?

[KG_Jag]

Originally Posted by TopHat

Yawn....

You may suggest whatever you want, but without quoting or otherwise indicating the post you are (supposedly) responding to, I guess you expect all of us to be mind readers.

Have you reviewed the law of contracts yet.....?

Yes, my old hornbook on Contracts has an entire chapter entitled "Third Party Beneficiaries". Perhaps you should read it, as it might help you go to sleep. If that is not enough, we can read about fraud as a tort and a crime.

A good lawyer reads the entire document before he issues his opinion. And yes--I expect you only to read text, not minds.