I got Shilled on Ebay

Page 2 of 3  
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:59:31 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

You are making the point you claim to be refuting: Self-bidding is allowed only within certain specific exceptions. Above, you made a reference to "absolute prohibition". There is not even an "absolute prohibition" against killing someone with a gun -- e.g., there is the self-defense exception. Also, in some states you can shoot to kill anyone who breaks into your house while you are at home. Then there is "defense of others". The exceptions themselves make rather clear that there is a "general prohibition" -- even if you have not found it. Maybe someone here said that _any_ owner-bidding is illegal, but I think that is your straw man. The fact is that there are laws against owner-bidding, unless excepted (and, generally, disclosed to the other bidders).
And, neither of the exceptions you found have anything to do with the auction the OP mentioned. -- Igor.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You demonstrate you inability to read the prior messages. I quote: "A seller bidding on their own auction is, in the U.S. at least, a crime and you can do time for it. Sellers who do that are thieves and should be pointed out as such."
*That* is what I questioned.

Thank you, again, for confirming the accuracy of my point -- It is _not_ *always* a crime for the seller to bid on his own items.

The follow-up I took exception to made a statement about _any_ auction.
Note: the poster of that follow-up _has_ agreed that his statement, as written was overly broad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:48:51 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
[snip for length]

You were responding to Tim Douglass who wrote: "A seller bidding on their own auction is, in the U.S. at least, a crime and you can do time for it. Sellers who do that are thieves and should be pointed out as such."
You even quoted him in your most recent reply, yet nowhere does he actually use the word "any", "all", "always", "absolute", or anything comparable. You set up a straw man, as I said. You call Tim's statement overly broad; I call it a statement of the general rule. You wanted to know about "the law", you wrote. You did not ask about "logic". Your reference to "Introductory Logic" is inapposite. Tell it to the judge and see if she cares.
Lawyers would _not_ say that Tim's post was wrong or even overly broad. They would say it is a statement of the general rule. And, as I wrote above, what is your point re the OP's post? Based on what he wrote (and assuming the facts were as he stated them), none of the exceptions applied. There was no foreclosure and no division. As a matter of the facts as posited, not possible under the law. Who cares about real property auctions -- the OP mentioned personal property owned by an individual. It's called "context". How about choice of laws, in rem and in personem jurisdiction, and the like? For that matter, how about International Shoe?!!! Fascinating stuff, but not relevant here.
If I say that it is a crime to come up behind you and shoot you in the head, is that _incorrect_ because I do not say that, well, actually it is OK if you are about to slit a child's throat? No. Just as saying "the earth is round" is not "incorrect" because there may well be some flat surfaces on it. And if I say that one is subject to income taxes on income earned from selling a piece of furniture, am I wrong if I do not say that, actually, no taxes are owed if one's adjusted income is below a certain level? Or, in parallel to your inapplicable "exceptions" on the facts as given, is my statement about taxes wrong because muni bond income is generally tax free in the muni's state? No and no.
To skip mentioning the exceptions is not to say that a statement posits an absolute. I think that is true even in undergrad logic; I know it is true in the law. Again, it is a statement of the general rule.
Law does not equal logic. It may find some basis in logic, but law is replete with evidence of illogic -- in the standard abstract sense of "logic". You have confused some sense of yourself knowing "logic" and therefore knowing the law and statutory construction. Call back when you have written a dozen laws. Then you'll almost be within hailing distance. If you have a really big megaphone.
As for my tone in my response to your posts, I have posted here many times (a piker compared to many, but often), and I cannot recall ever having used the same tone elsewhere in the NG. I save it for special people -- or, more accurately, for those special posts. Such as yours.
My mistake was to believe that you were interested in learning about the law. In fact, you were looking for an argument. When I realized that, I decided you needed some hit-in-the-head lessons. Arguments are down the hall. To the left. -- Igor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Tom) wrote:

How's this? http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/online/auctions.htm#legal
AW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Best I've seen anybody offer so far. But it only proscribes 'shill' bidding by or on behalf of a seller. And I havn't been able to find the supporting FTC regs and/or statute, to see _exact_ language.
There are numerous situations where the seller can *legitimately* be bidding on the item up for auction.
e.g. a foreclosure auction. the lender almost invariably "reserves the right to bid in it's own name" for the secured item.
e.g. a 'partition' lawsuit auction. Where the joint owners cannot agree on a division of the item, it is put up for auction -- and often the owners, *individually*, are bidding against each other, as well as any other possible buyers.
I've no reason to doubt that _some_ types of seller bidding are proscribed. I find it hard to believe, particularly given the above examples, that *all* seller bidding is illegal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 09:00:12 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

Again, your straw man. Who said "all" -- except you? And if someone did, he's wrong. If you wanted to learn something, fine. Argument for argument's sake, not fine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*I* said "all", Igor. It was just a blanket statement with the thought in mind that "all shill bidding is illegal". It didn't come out that way.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Gee, Tim, and here it is I just posted a long statement in this thread in your defense!!!. (I hate smileys, but one could well go here.) IMO and IME, what you said originally - I could not find the word "all" in your post, but am dyslexic, dog knows why - was fine. You stated the general rule. Correctly. And since we were talking about a single seller's drill press, the exceptions cited _could_ not apply.
"Shilling" is not a legal term, IME. However, a dictionary meaning: "n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle." From that perspective, if one is acting as a shill, one is presumptively acting illegally -- even if the law uses different terms of art. If one is an owner (or his agent) and bidding openly, the exceptions may apply. But if acting as "a shill", one is _unlikely_ to be able to fit within any exception as there would necessarily be no notice. So, I would say that all shill bidding is illegal. Self-bidding is also illegal, at least in CA, subject to specific exceptions.
So Tim, I'll still defend you. For if the dovetail does not fit, you must acquit -- or, at least recut it, or use a chisel, or something. Let me DAGS and get back to you on that. -- Igor
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@citrix.com (slindars) wrote:

My first thought is astonishment that eBay's software would permit one to bid on one's own auctions.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It doesn't. But, if he has more than one account (also a SafeHarbor violation), then it's trivial to do. That's one thing they'll look at, to see if the losing bidder (or winning bidder) for that same person's auctions is frequently the suspected shill account. That could be a legit pattern (two collectors of similar objects), or it could be fraud. In this case, the latter seems to be the case.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

Think: two *different* accounts.
Regards, JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:50:56 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Dummy user account?
Tom Veatch Wichita, KS USA
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in message (slindars) wrote:

It may be contrary to eBay policy but as a practical matter one can have more than one eBay account.
However, eBay has a 'reserve bid' system. The seller may set a reserve price which will be minimum acceptable winning bid.
I daresay that a bidder who shill bids on his own merchandize probably does not understand that feature. A seller who bids on and wins his own auction owes eBay more than one whose auction fails to meet the reserve bid, right?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:50:56 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Apart from the dummy account idea, how naive can you get? <G> I am surprised about Ebay only when it does something _right_ and _honest_, or makes any attempt to clean up that sludgepit.
rant over.

***************************************************** Dogs are better than people.
People are better than dogs for only one purpose. And then it's only half of ofthe people. And _then_ most of them are only ordinary anyway. And then they have a headache.........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This is so cool. Talk about being caught red handed. Send him a copy of the recent press about what the AG in NY did to shillers -- then tell him to deliver the thing to you for $20.
On 11 Nov 2004 10:49:25 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@citrix.com (slindars) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@citrix.com (slindars) wrote in message

Send an e-mail the the (bogus) second place bidder saying they can have it for the $72....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@citrix.com (slindars) wrote in message

You sure it was the same ID? Send a link to the aution...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Sounds to me like typical sniping (not against the rules), not the seller shilling(definite no-no).
The first bidder bids $25, you come along a and place a higher bid, the first bidder decides to use a sniping site to place a bid seconds before the auction ends. You win because your bid via Ebay was simply higher than the bid he placed via the sniping site.
You can report it, but unless there's a connection between the two accounts, you are likely SOL. From what you have said, I can see why you are peeved, you had to pay $73 vs. the $37 it was at until the last second bid was placed. I also can't see how you can conclude that the seller shilled you unless you have some other information.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The seller told you he bid on his own auction? That doesn't make sense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably a simple misunderstanding of the process. I'm guessing what happened is that the seller specified a minimum bid of $25, and the buyer experienced an unsuccessful snipe shortly before the end of the auction.
However, I have seen evidence of irregular behaviour on the part of eBay in other circumstances that did not make sense. Partially to protect myself from this, I *always* wait to put in my proxy bid as late as possible, and I will use a sniping service if the end of auction is at an inconvenient time.
In other news, I GOT A BID on my Argentinian leather duffle! So it's actually going to sell. I will be listing a really nice leather attache sometime Sunday evening. So my eBay career is off to an encouraging start.
I've been toying with the idea of selling hand tools in addition to my line of violins. Another possibility is toner cartridges, but I'm not closed to carrying anything that sells well and is not unreasonable to ship.
--
Howard Lee Harkness
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AffHC.HLHins.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.