Quote:
Originally Posted by Beastmode
E-bay is in the Republic of California, so let's start there. We don't follow half of the federal laws here anyway. Here's 2328 California Commercial code (which I think is similar to your UCC reference)
(3) Such a sale is with reserve unless the goods are in explicit terms put up without reserve. In an auction with reserve the auctioneer may withdraw the goods at any time until he announces completion of the sale. In an auction without reserve, after the auctioneer calls for bids on an article or lot, that article or lot cannot be withdrawn unless no bid is made within a reasonable time. In either case a bidder may retract his bid until the auctioneer's announcement of completion of the sale, but a bidder's retraction does not revive any previous bid.
We maybe be talking the same language here, but the problem is e-bay is moving the under-bidder into pole position after a high bidder retracts. That is violating law as I read it, or at a minimum, the intent of the law.
I can quote you on some other California Auction Codes that e-bay is ignoring if you want. In the near future, these AH's, and e-bay, are going to have skin in the game. They will not be able to throw up their hands and declare "i had no clue", or "we're just consignors", when they're enabling listings of the highest degree of fraud on their software platform.
|
That's all I was saying (the bolded portion) they HAVE to allow retractions. If you look at the other thread mentioned earlier we did discuss remedy after retraction. There are basically two ways a reputable auctioneer handles the situation. They either start the item over or ASK the under bidder if they would like to maintain their bid. Said under bidder is under no obligation to do so. There may be another way to legally handle the situation, but I agree that ebay's way certainly seems to violate the UCC (and yes it appears 2-328 is identical between the UCC and the CCC)