Quote:
Can someone point me to the post that shows the seller did not INTEND to price the card at $24.95? |
Quote:
I guess it's easy to post anything you want on a message board - nobody verifies the facts. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
(713) 67x-xxxx (PM for it) |
why don't you just post Joe O's # up there while you're at it...because I would believe anything he says.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The only way to know is to call the seller and ask him. If you know of another way, please share. |
Guys - It seems wrong to post someone else's phone number on the board without their consent.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ebay can't force a seller to ship anything. Ask them & they will readily admit that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
My assumption was that you already called him. Because you are claiming it's a "pricing error", which you and others have claimed as "fact". Or is that an assumption ? You did call him, right? Because you wouldn't just assume it was a pricing error. See how assumptions work? Or more appropriately, don't work. I DID go back and look at his other T206 listings, and the price on the Lennox was in line with other common front, similar condition cards. So I take back my statement on them being the SAME price. But they were similar. So there is no clear evidence either way. Which get's back to Peter's point about having to be a mind reader during effectively any transaction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If a seller (or even a buyer) backs out of a deal and uses good communication in doing so there is no reason why I would personally hold someone to it. Similar to a person returning items to their local store, or a cashier pointing out that an item was on the wrong shelf and the price is not what the customer thought it was. Every situation is a case-by-case scenario and I wouldn't judge either person in this matter since I don't know the full story, and I am not qualified to be a judge. |
No contact
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. |
Quote:
+++++1 |
Quote:
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). |
Quote:
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 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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Reductio ad absurdum" I maintain is a valid argument.;) |
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? |
If I were to give
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thanks to the OP, we know you cant even out auctions...until the card is in hand |
Quote:
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 |
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? :confused: 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... |
good point
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
That could be, Dan. I just noted that the feedback occurred three days after the BIN was hit, and apparently the error was not spotted or the seller still allowed payment and for feedback. I assume that even if feedback was automatic, he could take steps to change it for a specific transaction, but I don't know.
|
Quote:
Post office still does not have any tracking information available and delivery was esimated as 5/21. Seller still has not contacted buyer. |
Quote:
|
As a Yankee collector, i HATE beyond belief when someone identifies a GIANTS card as a YANKEE card. Either its total stupidity or they do it on purpose to either fool people that dont have knowledge or to get people to look at it.
I understand what you guys are saying about the Lenox back and the value, i am just bringing up a different error in that listing. Its such a bugaboo of mine. The guy really didnt know what he had. |
FWIW, the seller had sold another Seymour, in better condition, the week before, also for a BIN of $24.95. Sweet Cap back, though.
Bill |
...and now for the rest of the story...
After 3 weeks of non-response from the seller to e-mails and no-delivery of the card the seller has finally surfaced. They have refunded the buyer of the card and informed them there was a pricing error. When asked what the correct price is because the buyer was still interested in the card the seller informed the buyer that he had already sold the card to the person who notified him about the pricing error.
I hope that wasn't a Net54 member. |
Quote:
http://ionegiantmag.files.wordpress....if?w=280&h=158 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Is the McKinley being offered on page 24 of the upcoming REA auction the same McKinley discussed here?
|
Quote:
|
Yeah. Wonder if the seller reneged or if the consignor actually has $9 into it.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:43 PM. |