Quote:
Originally Posted by scooter729
Curious as to what people would think of this hypothetical situation, if it were possible for it to happen....
Two friends (A and B) both are interested in an item that doesn't pop up often, but typically would sell for around $500. But since it doesn't come up for sale often, both are willing to pay $1,000+.
In talking, they both realize they are likely going to bid each other up on the item, so they come to an agreement to have Friend B stay away from bidding on this item and let A get it for ~$500, and B will be able to get the next one that comes available for ~$500.
Is this scenario wrong? Seems like the buyer's version of shilling - wouldn't be illegal but is it ethical?
|
Hi Scooter. You pose an interesting question. Please know that my answer is not an attack, snarky response, or anything of the sort. I am just joining in the conversation.
As it pertains to the scenario above, wouldn't this be an example of bidder collusion? I very well could be mistaken; however, think the practice actually is illegal. At the very least, it artificially suppresses the price of the item. It could likely also be argued that the consignor suffered economic harm because of the bidders' agreement.
For the purpose of full disclosure, I never participated in Mastro auctions.
Best regards to all. Happy collecting.