Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
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.
|
Clearly, I'm not a lawyer. I just take issue with your conclusion, not your language. I understand what you wrote. I just disagree with your claim that it is "definitely NOT about just damaging the PWCC brand". I am not saying that definitely is, I'm simply saying that I don't think you can rule it out. I also am of the opinion that the likelihood of it being the sole intent of that email is actually quite high, but that's just a personal opinion. My disagreement comes from your use of the words "definitely not" rather than "probably not".
I think our disconnect comes from this statement here, where you wrote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
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.
|
To which I ask, "solid evidence to back up which statement"? The one that reads, "individuals associated with PWCC have engaged in shill bidding"? This is the phrase that matters. This is what the entire debate hinges on for me.
Who are the "individuals associated with PWCC"? It is an entirely different claim to say that PWCC employees engaged in shill bidding than it is to say that random eBay users who consigned with them (which PWCC has no control over) engaged in shill bidding. Surely, you can appreciate the difference between those two claims.
There's a reason eBay's email was vaguely worded as to who actually committed the shill bidding. Perhaps I'm reading into it too much, but I don't think so.