Duly note that my working scenario is the case would be in small clams court, with a judge scheduling 10 minutes per case and the item in dispute being a baseball card or such that won't particularly stand out to a non-collecting judge as something of more significance than the stolen lawn chair set or the missing carburetor in the day's previous cases. I'm not envisioning the case involving the stolen relic of the Babylon and teams of lawyers and professorial expert witnesses.

If it turns out the eBay auction was for the Hope Diamond or the newly uncovered second set of Anne Frank's diaries, I will revisit my earlier post.

Nice

As a seasoned collector said to an angry newbie, "You have a valid legal point, but the FBI isn't going to open a case over your stolen 1980 Topps set."

Technically not true on either point. If you sue for something that it stolen from you, you are entitled to the value of the property at the time of conversion/theft, not what you paid for it. Punitive damages might also be recoverable.

As for the latter, you would be entitled to benefit of the bargain damages, meaning if you could show that the item cost you $x to replace and x was greater than what you would have paid here, the difference is your damage--so long as your replacement reflected some reasonable market value and was an arm's length transaction.

Here in AZ, a small-claim court (or even claims under $10K) would be heard by a justice of the peace, who does not even have to be a lawyer much less a a judge. So you might just get a cup of coffee and a round of applause.

Oh is he now? According to the seller, he said someone messaged him. I'm only going off what the seller told me here..

This bullsh!t happened to me last night, I'm so pissed!! Seller said, the item was sold a few weeks ago... What a liar! I did a search, nothing. I asked for the item number, no response... Whatever!

Al

I'm sure it's easy for you to deduce who it might be that felt like running a cock block move, huh? Anyone you've had a tiff with that wants to get back at you. If you're talking about a game used bat, it's a small industry, for the most part....

As Tony Soprano said, "Revenge is a dish best served with cold cuts"

Let me know when the poster wins the court case for lost profits. Chatboard legal arguments do not a court ordered bank check make, especially when in the real world a federal case starts with finding out how much a lawyer costs.

In the real world the best thing to do is, if founded in fact, to publicize the offending sellers and tamperers so future buyers are aware of their level of hobby ethics.

Of course, collectors will still deal with these people when they have the goods, but that's a major problem with this hobby. Personally, I'm lazy and won't spend the time and effort bidding in an auction where I know the seller may back out. There are better things I can do with my time, such as watching Gilligan's Island or playing Yahtzee.

If you click 'Find a member', the resulting screen then adds 'by bidder' under the 'Items' search area. I guess ebay missed that.

I was just messing around trying to find what Albert lost out on last night, but only found a couple of $10 boxing cards that ended back on May 27. I guess one of those deals went sideways - sorry to hear that, Albert.

Was a different ebay user name.. Thanks for looking. This is becoming a new fad with sellers. :(

Albert

Frankly, I would just neg the seller, put 1's in the DSR's and move on. This happens all of the time with nonpayment from ebay buyers, so I consider this the same thing. I don't think anyone threatens ebay buyers who don't pay with lawsuits.

can you even neg the seller?????

Why not? I think you can. In fact, the seller has to open an ebay case to cancel the transaction after the refund, and the buyer has to agree to the cancel transaction. Otherwise ebay will still charge the seller the full final value fee even though the buyer has been refunded.

This is problematic when trying to find items that just ended as ebay now hides completed listings from search results for 24 hours after the item ends, and I think this applies when searching users' buying histories as well. If you have the item saved in your watch list or know the item number, you can still pull it up, but it won't turn up in search results for 24 hours, even if you type in the exact title.

This way you can tell if a board member contacted the seller within that window... wmoments after you started a thread about the good deal you just got (had)

At the time I started the thread, the seller had already given me a refund. The whole purpose of the thread was to see if there was anything that could be done about a seller backing out.

In the meantime, some punk reached out to the seller and told him he sold the item for too little.

It's all fine. I don't care about the bat now for multiple reasons, and the person who contacted the seller is clearly clueless. I really just care about the person who contacted the seller, that's all at this point. That was such a crummy thing to do.

I really just care about the person who contacted the seller, that's all at this point. That was such a crummy thing to do.


I couldnt agree more. I "lost" 3500.00 because...like an idiot I outed my winnings before they were in hand

Never again

I'll play the legal claim game. My vote is going after the third party for intentional interference with a contract.

That was a d-bag move on the outer's part.

I am still confused by this thread. You said in the first post that seller was told by someone that the item was undervalued and the seller backed out of the sale and refunded the money. Later you said the seller had a change of heart and was going to honor the sale. Then you said he backed out again because someone from this site emailed him to tell him what the item was really worth. But he already knew it was worth more from your original post? So why the outrage about the role of an anonymous person possibly from this site. After all you discussed it in an open forum, how could you not reasonably expect it to get back to the seller? I get being upset at the seller but clearly there is something I missed or something unsaid in all of this because I don't get the outrage about the anonymous emailer.

How would you feel after you buy something on eBay, then a jealous low life loser emails the seller and interferes with your purchase. Which in the end means you don't get the item.

I understand that. But he said in the original post that the seller was aware that the item was worth more because someone told him separately. So the seller was already aware.

In summary

What I find funny is, the person who informs these sellers that these items are going way to cheap(I'm guessing this is the same forum member who screwed another forum member on a $$$ item and also tried messing up a deal of mine). They think they're doing the right thing in telling them that the price is too cheap. Yet they feel the need to hide. If you feel that it's the right thing to do, then you shouldn't be scared to tell us that it's you.

InsTead they had to have a auction house call me and threaten to ban me from GUU if I mentioned their name online(referring to early deals they interfered with!).

But he then told the seller that he'd go legal action. So I'm guessing it scared the seller back into doing the deal. But then the person showed him this thread and the seller probably realized that there's nothing the buyer could really do and was bluffing legal action.

I can see how that is a little confusing. When he refunded me the first time, he told me he needed to refund my money because he found out that it's worth more than what it sold for. My initial thought was that someone had messaged him. So at that point, that was when I made the thread to see what type of steps I could make to try and get the bat. Then he messages me and said that he's had a change of heart and if I still want it I can have it for the original price. So I went ahead and paid for it, again.

Then last night he messages me that someone had contacted him about this thread and refunds my money, end of story.

It's really ok. Come to find out the bat had a few issues and even though I got it at a nice price, it wasn't a steal by any means like I thought in the beginning. That's why I can live without it. Like I said, I'm more annoyed at the person who messaged the seller. I'm ready to move on, I was just on fire for a few days, and rightfully so in my opinion.

I got bigger fish to fry :-)

Got it. Makes more sense now. Seems unfortunate on the whole.

I am shocked that this do-gooder has not yet revealed himself. :rolleyes:

I kind of remember a thread not very long ago involving a rare back t206... Where the majority of net 54 members seemed to think it was fine for the seller to renege as their buy it now price was too low... How is this any different?

Oops

It isn't. Then again I thought that was BS.

I didn't read all these posts, but I'm sure somebody already said it: Ebay won't do jack squat! The only time they do something is when the seller doesn't send your item and you paid for it. But the seller flaking on the trade will usually result in no action because he'll just tell ebay (if they bother to even ask the seller) that he lost the item and they won't do anything about that.

T206 lenox
 

This brings up the T206 Seymour Lenox situation.

After 3 weeks, multiple e-mails with no reply, and no other forms of communication the seller of the T206 Seymour Lenox refunded the money to the buyer of the card and said there was a pricing error. When asked what the correct price was the seller said he had already sold the card to the person who alerted him to the error and that the card was no longer available.

I hope it was not a Net54 member.

This fits in the category of things the seller probably should not have said.

Who is EBay user--- Baseball999?

Well, Baseball999 from CT was the one that tried to get in the middle of this transaction. They're pretty quiet now for some reason........

Might want to pose that question on the memorabilia side...

Joshua

Probably a good idea.