On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 07:59:31 +0000, firstname.lastname@example.org (Robert
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.
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.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:48:51 +0000, email@example.com (Robert
[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
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
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.
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
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
My first thought is astonishment that eBay's software would permit one to bid
on one's own auctions.
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.
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.
firstname.lastname@example.org (Doug Miller) wrote in message
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
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 19:50:56 GMT, email@example.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.
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
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, firstname.lastname@example.org (slindars) wrote:
Sounds to me like typical sniping (not against the rules), not the seller
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.
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
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
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
Howard Lee Harkness
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://AffHC.HLHins.com
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.