|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Yet another e-bay moral question posted by John N on March 09, 2003 at 09:48:56:
Thanks for those who responded. I carefully read the terms of use by E-bay and came to the conclusion that they would likely do nothing.
I e-mailed both the seller and the high bidder. I would have gone to the top three bidders, but the next one down the line was a new e-bayer with no information that would make it easy to e-mail him, so I was satisfied with the top bidder.
I got an extremely snotty e-mail back from the seller essentially threatening legal action and telling me to mind my own business.
The high bidder did not respond and won the auction.
I must disagree rather strongly with nijohn's position. I try to behave morally, and I would not want to get stuck with something that was very different than described. I get slightly sad when I buy a record that was advertised as A whcih looks like it was used in several ultimate frisbee games. I have also been the benficiary of kindness and getting involved by people who didn't need to, and feel that I have the obligation to reciprocate. I am not an e-policeman, but in those one or two situations where I can uniquely provide help, I will.
Follow Ups:
i do appreciate you even giving what i say some thought. probably what you did wasn't so bad.the issue to me was to consider that one piece of the presentation was incorrect (the mileage). if the car was completely misrepresented, i would probably feel differently.
let's say it was an amplifier. and the amplifier was not working at all and the seller misrepresented that it was in working condition, then i would say something to the bidders, and to e-bay.
but if the seller misrepresents one piece of the picture, in my estimation, say for example saying it was a lightly used amp when i know it was used much more than stated, i wouldn't say anything.
that type of cheating goes on all the time it seems. the misrepresentation is what i'm talking about, or call it a type of presenting. people who are suppose to be scrupulous are unscrupulous. i learned that myself from purchases on the used market.
njjohn wrote:> the issue to me was to consider that one piece of the presentation
> was incorrect (the mileage).nnjohn, you may be correct in principle but tampering with odometer mileage is a crime. When it comes to a fair and free auto marketplace, consumers depend on the integrity of the odometer. That is probably the single most important factor in a model's price, and I'm sure you know that.
Rolling back the odometer (if this is what happened) is not an ordinary fudging, like saying the leather is in great shape when in fact there are tears.
I think John N did the right thing under the circumstances although I would also have contacted eBay even if doing so would be pointless.
you're sure it's the same car and you're sure he misrepresented the mileage in a negative manner?What did the seller say specifically? Or was it just a 'screw off' reply?
If it were me and he really was rolling it back, I'd fire off an email to the cops, the BBB or the State Attorney's Office after receiving the snotty reply.
Hell, you gave him a chance to make it right and he spit in your face.
I can say with 100% certainty it is the same car, based on some things visible in the picture, as well as things in the description . He was a bit careful in his e-mail to me: he said that the true mileage was unknown even though the E-bay ad had a specific number listed. Since I have sent appropriate inforamtion to the high bidder, it is (in part) incumbent on him to act.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: