Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
How can you possibly say that it is "definitely NOT that" though? I assume you're a lawyer. Pay attention to the language used in that email. Their claim is that "individuals associated with PWCC engaged in shill bidding". That's a remarkably broad statement that could easily just mean that people who consigned with PWCC bid on their own auctions. Surely, their legal team carefully crafted that email so as to avoid any such lawsuits. If they had proof that PWCC employees were the ones doing the shill bidding, then why not just say so? After all, as you said, surely they wouldn't make such a claim without proof. But they in fact did not make such a claim. Probably because they did not have such proof.
To walk away from that email and assume that eBay meant anything other than people who consigned with PWCC would be jumping to conclusions based on assumptions. If that is in fact who eBay was referring to when they said "individuals associated with", then I think what they did should be criminal and that it should be considered trade libel. I'm also of the belief, based on my experiences with eBay and the experiences of several of my friends who have worked there (some of whom were executives) that this is most likely what happened.
|
You need to pay attention to language, Travis. I wrote that eBay's statement "is definitely NOT about
just damaging the PWCC brand."
Just being about damaging the brand would be evidence of intent. As for your point, eBay sending out an email stating that "Recently, it was determined that individuals associated with a trading card seller, PWCC, have engaged in “shill bidding,”" is certainly a "statement concerning the quality of services or product of" PWCC and is certainly one that will cause it financial damage, if for no other reason than the lost profits on the canceled sales and the man-hour needed to relist all that crap on another site. That leaves the intent element of the tort. My point is that under those circumstances eBay's email blast would never pass legal vetting unless there was solid evidence in the file to back up the statement and therefore negate the possibility that it was done with intent to damage the business rather than to protect eBay's customers from further perceived predation with resulting tangential damage to PWCC's business. Otherwise I would expect PWCC to sue, but that will never, ever happen because it would mean that the PWCC crew would have to open their records of communications with every shill bidder and then answer questions under oath posed by trained cross-examiners. If PWCC is so wronged and so right in its actions, let's see the lawsuit to vindicate it. Personally, I am not holding my breath.