Who said there are no deals on ebay......

[BleedinBlue]

I just want to point out that at no time has the eBay seller attempted to contact the buyer and despite the item being listed as "shipped", the USPS has no tracking information on the package.

I still want to know what the eBay seller paid for the card and if the board thinks the eBay seller has an obligation to go back and correct the earlier transaction if he purchased the card at a common price.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BleedinBlue

I still want to know what the eBay seller paid for the card and if the board thinks the eBay seller has an obligation to go back and correct the earlier transaction if he purchased the card at a common price.

+++++1

[tschock]

Originally Posted by BleedinBlue

I just want to point out that at no time has the eBay seller attempted to contact the buyer and despite the item being listed as "shipped", the USPS has no tracking information on the package.

I still want to know what the eBay seller paid for the card and if the board thinks the eBay seller has an obligation to go back and correct the earlier transaction if he purchased the card at a common price.

The only obligation the ebay seller has is to complete the contract as agreed upon with the ebay buyer (as loosely enforced as these contracts may be).

If the ebay seller got a 'steal of a deal' on the card from the original seller, he has no 'obligation' to the original seller, however I would find it hypocritical to expect the ebay buyer to 'understand' or come to a new agreement with the ebay seller if the ebay seller was not willing to recompense the original seller as well. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just hypocritical (IMO).

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by BleedinBlue

I still want to know what the eBay seller paid for the card and if the board thinks the eBay seller has an obligation to go back and correct the earlier transaction if he purchased the card at a common price.

It depends on how the previous transaction occured. If the previous seller approached the buyer (who is now the seller) and said, "I have this card and I want $20 for it" and the the buyer purchased if for that amount, that goes back to what I've been saying over and over - it's a seller's responsibility to do their own homework to know what they're selling and the value. There is nothing to "correct."

Now a question for you. If you do believe the buyer has an obligation to go back and "correct" the earlier transaction, how far back should the correction go? Should that person go back and correct the person he purchased it from and so on and so on? How far back do we go to make it right in your book?

[packs]

I don't know what all the fuss is about. A seller who lists something for sale at a certain price should have no expectations about receiving a different price for their item.

I don't know what all this talk about mistakes is. Sure, people get busy and move quickly. But these are adults and no one needs to hold their hand in my opinion. You make a mistake, you own up to it. I see nothing reasonable about wanting to get out of a deal because you didn't know what you were doing.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know what all the fuss is about. A seller who lists something for sale at a certain price should have no expectations about receiving a different price for their item.

I don't know what all this talk about mistakes is. Sure, people get busy and move quickly. But these are adults and no one needs to hold their hand in my opinion. You make a mistake, you own up to it. I see nothing reasonable about wanting to get out of a deal because you didn't know what you were doing.

Bless you and your opinion!!!!

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't know what all the fuss is about. A seller who lists something for sale at a certain price should have no expectations about receiving a different price for their item.

I don't know what all this talk about mistakes is. Sure, people get busy and move quickly. But these are adults and no one needs to hold their hand in my opinion. You make a mistake, you own up to it. I see nothing reasonable about wanting to get out of a deal because you didn't know what you were doing.

+1. It seems like the seller moves a decent amount of product and in this case, a valuable card slipped through the cracks. If I was the buyer, I would be pretty pissed off if the seller tried to reneg after the transaction was completed. I'm pretty sure that if the OP didn't raise the subject right away, the card would have already been shipped.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by wolf441

+1. It seems like the seller moves a decent amount of product and in this case, a valuable card slipped through the cracks. If I was the buyer, I would be pretty pissed off if the seller tried to reneg after the transaction was completed. I'm pretty sure that if the OP didn't raise the subject right away, the card would have already been shipped.

Thanks to the OP, we know you cant even out auctions...until the card is in hand

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thanks to the OP, we know you cant even out auctions...until the card is in hand

That was a mistake on my part, I was browsing the sold listings when I saw
it on the second page. It usually takes two or three days after the sale for it
show up. I had just made a purchase from this seller who shipped the card
the next day. If I had known the card hadn't been shipped I would have waited to post about it.

P@trick R0.m0lo

[GoCubsGo32]

Very interesting topic.

I might be missing something but...

IF there was an error in the listing...Why didn't the seller contact the buyer within 12-24hrs of the auction ending about the error? IF that was the case, I would think, they would promptly do so, to inform the buyer since it is a $1,200 error. In fact, how come the buyer hasn't been contact yet..still..??

Like I said, I could be missing something...but how does the buyer even know the seller made a mistake until the seller contacts the buyer?

Did Net54 really step in to stop this transaction from happening?

It seems to me, that the seller was ready to ship the item since he had already paid for the postage and printed USPS label off eBay...

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

It depends on how the previous transaction occured. If the previous seller approached the buyer (who is now the seller) and said, "I have this card and I want $20 for it" and the the buyer purchased if for that amount, that goes back to what I've been saying over and over - it's a seller's responsibility to do their own homework to know what they're selling and the value. There is nothing to "correct."

Now a question for you. If you do believe the buyer has an obligation to go back and "correct" the earlier transaction, how far back should the correction go? Should that person go back and correct the person he purchased it from and so on and so on? How far back do we go to make it right in your book?

I wouldn't go farther back than 1909, but at some point you are going to encounter a dead seller. Then do we have to bring his heirs into the discussion. This could get very complicated.

"Reductio ad absurdum" I maintain is a valid argument.

[packs]

For members who think a seller is reasonable in saying they made a mistake and the listing was incorrect only after an item has sold, I have a question for you.

If you sold something to me and then I get buyers remorse and come saying I didn't mean to bid that amount so I'm not paying, how do you feel about that? Do you think I should pay what I bid?

Another scenario. You're a seller. You sell me a card. I find out the next day that the same card sold for less money. Now I want you to reduce my winning bid because the card sold for less. Am I being reasonable?

[glynparson]

If the price were low due to seller not knowing or being lazy then it is his fault. If it was a mistake of some sort by an employee or he mistakenly left it in at $25 instead of what he was going to list for than I think he should be allowed to back out. We all make mistakes, I would ship the card but that does not mean I expect someone else should have to do this. I would understand especially if this is his vocation that the extra money may make a huge difference to this person and I would not feel right capitalizing on a mistake. If all the facts come out I would more easily be able to form my opinion. Until that time i see reasonable examples on both sides.

not sure where i was going with thread title lol.

[pbspelly]

Someone may already have posted about this, but from a legal perspective (as opposed to an ethical one), a lot depends on (a) the knowledge of the buyer and (b) the reason that it was underpriced (i.e whether it was a clerical error or a misunderstanding about the value of the card). The following is copied over from an online legal site (and is thus not intended as legal advice from me):

Unilateral Mistake

A unilateral mistake is a mechanical error of calculation or perception concerning a basic assumption on which the contract is formed. For example:

The Boston Red Sox and Ramon Garcia orally negotiate a contract where Garcia will play for the Red Sox and the Red Sox will pay him $15,000. During the negotiation, Garcia thought he heard the Red Sox say $50,000. This is a unilateral mistake.

The general rule involving unilateral mistakes is that, if the non-mistaken party either knew or should have known of the other party’s mistake, the mistake is a “palpable unilateral mistake” which makes the contract voidable by the mistaken party. For example:

The Pentagon is accepting bids from ship building companies to build a new aircraft carrier. Ten different companies submit bids. Nine of those bids range in price from $140 million to $150 million. The tenth bid, belonging to Seven Seas Shipbuilding Inc., comes in at $43 million. The Pentagon quickly signs Seven Seas to the contract. The next day, Seven Seas reviews its bid submission and discovers some calculating errors that resulted in their bid being $43 million when it should have been $136 million. In this case, the contract will be voidable by Seven Seas. The fact that there was a $97 million difference between Seven Seas’ bid and the next lowest bid should have been a clear indication to the Pentagon that Seven Seas had made a mistake somewhere. Therefore, the Pentagon either knew or should have known that Seven Seas made a mistake. That being the case, the mistake was a palpable unilateral mistake and Seven Seas can void the contract. See M.F. Kemper Construction Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 37 Cal.2d 696 (1951).

Please note that palpable unilateral mistakes will only make a contract voidable if the mistake is a mechanical error (ex: mistakes in calculation or perception). Mistakes in judgment as to the value or quality of an object will not make the contract voidable. For example:

George is the owner and manager of Babe’s Baseball Memorabilia. Mickey is rummaging through his attic one day when he finds a baseball bat signed by Ted Williams. Mickey, who is not a sports fan, has no idea who Ted Williams is but he remembers that there is a baseball memorabilia shop a few blocks away that buys things with signatures on them. Mickey brings the bat to George who offers Mickey $200 for it. Mickey gladly contracts with George to sell the bat for $200. A few weeks later, Mickey is telling Roger, an avid sports fan, about the bat and Roger informs Mickey that the bat was worth $5000. Unfortunately for Mickey, the contract he made with George is enforceable because Mickey’s mistake was not a palpable unilateral mistake. It was simply a mistake in judgment as to the value of the bat.

If the non-mistaken party either did not know, or had no reason to know, of the other party’s mistake, there is a binding contract.

Several modern cases, however, have determined that if the mistaken party notifies the other party of the mistake before the non-mistaken party relies on the mistake, the mistaken party can rescind the contract.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I wouldn't go farther back than 1909, but at some point you are going to encounter a dead seller. Then do we have to bring his heirs into the discussion. This could get very complicated.

"Reductio ad absurdum" I maintain is a valid argument.

I've tried that with a few good deals I got, going both backward and forward. It's an interesting exercise. The result is generally that everyone made money commensurate with the role they had in moving the product. I once bought a very valuable item for $100 after haggling with the seller for a while. He was happy, and even told me he made a small profit. I later found out the item was very valuable - do I go back and give the seller a cut? Does he go back and give the guy at the flea market a cut? Does the guy at the flea market go back and give the little old lady a cut? Here's the kicker - the guy I sold it to made more than anyone. Does he give ME a cut? bwahahaha