72? 73? What do you think?

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:30 am

No problem Andrew,

Glad to help.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:10 am

I'm no expert on this type of law but I would think there is at least one issue. The seller entered into a contract with Ebay to sell the item at auction and when it was "sold" outside of Ebay that contract was violated. Now since Andrew obviously knew the item was listed on Ebay and would likely know Ebay rules (or should since he is using the service) and he tries to buy it outside of the auction (violation of the rules) then his "contract" was never legit since it was obtained by circumventing a previous/legal contract. Not to mention that the seller certainly knows that this is a "no-no" so he really has no right to enter into the agreement in the first place. I know it happens all of the time but that doesn't necessarily make it proper.

Again, I am no expert (obviously

), but this is my simplified take on things and one of the reasons I have an issue with backdoor deals.

I'm not trying to be a pest or criticize Andrew for what he did but I'd be interested to see a professionals view on my argument. I can return the favor if anybody is ever arrested on criminal charges

!

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:19 am

Brian evil-bay will allow you to pull an auction if you meet certain criteria.

The seller could have quite easily met that criteria and fulfilled his contractual obligation to Andrew without breaking any contract. He was just looking for a bigger return that's all.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:29 am

You notice too though Brian that I did not say that I condone Andrew's backdoor approach. But the law views it in a very simple fashion. Ethics or bad business practise rarely if ever flavor a judges decision unless the transaction is unlawful in the first place.

All things being considered, the seller should have never sold the bass to Andrew but they did. That is the bottom line now.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:45 am

If I'm not mistaken the criteria is that the item is damaged, mis-listed, changed mind about selling, etc. I don't recall any mention of "sold to someone who saw the auction but doesn't want to bother with bidding" clause. I think there may be mention of "sold though another type of listing" or something but this is clearly a case of circumventing a legit auction.

You are more versed in this than I am so I'll concede defeat

.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:09 am

I would prefer to think that it's not a defeat. No one likes to be defeated.

Hopefully I have simply brought some clarity into play, particularly with respect to how the law would likely view that transaction.

It was certainly was not my intent to be pompous. I was just commenting on relevant points of contract law that were in play in that somewhat difficult transaction.

incubus2432 · Post by **incubus2432** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:29 am

I was in no way trying to imply that you were being pompous. As I said, I know little about contracts and appreciate your input.

I am a married civil servant with an ex-wife so I know defeat

. I can/will certainly stand my ground when I am confident of being right but in this case I am not. I was just saying that as a joking way to say that I will defer to your knowledge.....I'm sorry if it came across differently.

marc61 · Post by **marc61** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:37 am

Kinda obvious what happened though...They saw that the bidding on the auction was higher than what they were asking for in the store, and they probably hadn't charged Andrew's card, so they backed out of their deal with him.

The only other thing thatr may have happened was whoever agreed to sell him the bass did not realize it was for sale on Ebay

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:45 am

Thanks Brian,

I try to be extra careful when I offer knowledge that I have accumulated. I am sensitive to how I might come across when I write to both the casual reader and the recipient. I don't often post in this section so I was trying be of some help. It is so easy to be misunderstood.

winston · Post by **winston** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:52 am

Marc,

The test under the law there is, did the person accepting the offer have the capacity to enter into that transaction and were all conditions precedent for a contract in place at the time the agreement was ratified and accepted.

It would appear that all of those conditions were met.

I must add that being on terra firma with respect to the law does not guarantee that Andrew will not have a messy and protracted fight on his hands should he choose to pursue this matter.

wints · Post by **wints** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:43 am

Well guys, quite a thread developed here....

Brian, I do see your point on E Bay. It is always a potential and legal nightmare. We know selling goes on behind the auctions all the time and I've lost stuff before and am more proactive these days. There were no bids when I called and being on dial up I couldn't see how it was going.

As I said, the employee was the third person I spoke to. I had been on hold for 20 mins while the previous two junior guys found someone who "knew" the price and could make the sale. As far as he was concerned the bass was for sale and then he sold it.

The irony is, that had I been there in person, I would have paid and walked out with the bass....

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:09 am

Andrew ,you should have contacted me ,its only 45 minutes away from me,I would have gone down there on your behalf...

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:14 am

...and punched that guy in the shnazolla!

wints · Post by **wints** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:16 am

LOL Jared...

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:17 am

Jared...you consistently crack me up, dude.

Keep 'em comin'...