Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
I agree with you it sounds like they get ownership of your card if it doesn't meet their $10 min bid. They are doing this instead of charging you fees for a low end item that didn't sell.
|
I find it hard to believe they would/could do that, as it would definitely turn some people off from ever consigning with them. The wording they used definitely leaves something to be desired. But I can also understand them saying they won't simply return the cards because they don't want to go through the work and shipping expense of doing so.
I do not know their consignment policy and if they have any pre-acceptance protocols in place so they don't receive tons of unsolicited consignment submissions that aren't even worth their minimum bid. Unsold lots are not a good look for any AH/seller, and typically incur costs they can't recoup since there was no sale. And the fact that they had approximately 3,000 or so lots that didn't even warrant a bid in their first ever independent platform auction is a bit shocking to me. That seems like an awful high percentage of their initial auction lots got no bids, between 5% - 10%. Makes you wonder if they just did a bad job in accepting items for consignment they shouldn't have, if a lot of people that normally saw and bid on their auctions when they were on Ebay just aren't there now, at least for this first auction, or if there are even other unknown factors causing/influencing this large number of lots to not sell. Probably a combination of factors, that could change as they move forward with future auctions. We'll likely never know for certain though.
Still, if they had 3,000+ lots that didn't even get a $10 minimum bid, and say the average value for those unsold lots was realistically $5 each, that would mean that if their policy of taking possession of anything that didn't sell in their auction was really true that they just grabbed about $15K of cards for nothing. I don't think that will go over well at all with a lot of people, and would add more negative publicity to their name, which is probably the last thing they need right now.
Hmmmm, if they are in fact going to take someone's cards for not selling, I wonder if this could eventually lead to some sort of anti-shilling speculation that they may be able to do things in their auctions so that cards don't sell and they can simply take them for nothing. You know someone would eventually make that accusation if this policy continues.
Not so sure they'd have too many legal issues though as not many, if any, people would go to the time and expense of bringing a lawsuit for an item not even worth $10.
Would love to get the IRS's take on this if they do just take ownership of someone's cards. Would think the IRS could view this as reportable taxable inome to them, equal to at least the FMV of the cards they just took. Would be interesting to know how they internally account for this if they do take someone's cards then.