Bidiots getting smart?

Are you saying this auction did not contain "Silver Kennedy Half Dollars 90% Junk Silver"? Perhaps the 90% silver halves were the main part of the auction, and the 40% halves were essentially a bonus. I find this title less misleading than those auctions for large collections that show a photo of the large collection and describe all the items in the collection and buried in the auction text it states that you'll receive a few random items from the collection.

If the title said "4x 90% Silver Half Dollars", then I'd agree the title could justify a SNAD claim.

I don't see any legal grounds for the buyer to stand on since the description clearly stated what he would receive. Of course buyers can leave whatever sort of feedback they feel is warranted, and in FeeBay's eyes, sellers are considered guilty until proven innocent. So if the buyer does file an SNAD claim, they will likely side with him without even reading the auction description. Then it's up to Trey to waste countless hours disputing the claim and jumping through all the various hoops that come with a dispute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Whatever bro. If you're going to claim that title isn't misleading, there's no point of discussing it with you.

 

Just so everyone is aware I am taking all of these comments into consideration, and I do own up to the fact that I couldve used a better title, and even did so when i posted the other listing. Just throwing that out there.

Lord Geoff, I do also realize who's playground I am playing in and am aware they could very well side against me. Thats what I mean by whim, they will just side with the buyer, even if they are the more wrongful party. I am 100% sure of that.

The walking all over on ebay I am referring to are folks such as my buyer. Just run all over a seller (a new one at that) and expect ebay to have their back and make their mistake right. I wont put up with it until all scenarios are pursued. If ebay makes that final decision then i have to live with that, but the buyer should also have some responsibility in the process too. Who knows, he may not pursue the case seeing as my description was accurate enough, it hasnt escalated yet, so im interested in the outcome. Either way im learning things from this experience and can improve on my tactics, keep them the same, or make things worse, ultimately I am hoping to make things better.

 

So if I put up an auction that said "Lot of 1 oz pure 100% gold coins" and then put up a blurry picture of 10 goldish coins and it turned out 8 of them were a gold alloy of 1% gold, that isn't misleading? Because if I stated in the description "2 are 100% gold, 8 are 1% gold" in the middle of a paragraph? Cuz that is effectively what happened here and what you are saying is acceptable.

 

Or, how about the auctions for world coins that have the word "silver" in the title, and show a pile of coins. Would you expect every single coin in the lot to be silver?

I can understand if an auction description is overly wordy that a person might buy without reading the entire auction description, but Trey's description was short and to the point. If the buyer was too lazy to invest the 20 seconds it would have taken him to read the description, then I have no sympathy for him.

 

Misleading is such a strong word for this, I think the more accurate way to get this across is by saying the title had some room for improvement. Either way its not something to get worked up over. None of you have anything at stake with this auction, and I am making my own decisions and learning from them as i go. Im sure all of you were just born expert ebayers huh? Because it does take some time to learn new things, and this aspect of ebay is new to me.

If it makes any of you feel any better, I will work on giving my titles a little more intention and thought when I write them.

 

Thats not even close to what happened. You are mistaking intent for an accident which are very different. Just look at the other auction right below the one in question. It clearly wasnt a matter of deception, so quit trying to make it look like I am some terrible seller. I made a very minor mistake and am attempting to learn from it. The example you just provided is very clearly deceptive, when mine was a simple error. Very different

My pictures werent blurry, the dates were very legible, especially the 69. You cant tweak your example scenario to something that isnt even in the same league or category. Intent is a huge factor and at the end of the day, the buyer purchased exactly what the auction described.

And yes, I am also against the deceptive practices you mentioned in your example, a far cry from what I did though.

 

More wrongful is debatable. For the sake of argument though let's assume they are "more wrongful", and you are "wrong but less wrongful".

Basically, you are upset because you unintentionally made a boo boo and the seller didn't do his due diligence and then didn't want to take responsibility for the purchase, which was presumably part his fault and part your fault. Why then, should they side with him and not you?

Again, I think it comes down to possible abuse. Even if in this specific case, an infallible judge could take the facts and say "Yes the buyer messed up more. Deal goes through" (which I'm not sure I agree with) the problem is that if they took this viewpoint sellers would be abusing this ruling CONSTANTLY. Ebay is already full of scummy sellers and if they had the leeway to put whatever they wanted on the title as long as anywhere in the description it said what it really was, it would be a complete circus.

I think this is perhaps the best answer to "Why is Ebay going to side with him? He messed up (also)." Not sure it makes you feel better, but maybe you can see the reason for it (besides the fact you messed up as well).

 

The problem is, while you know and I know you didn't do it on purpose, that if the auctions such as this were enforceable, there would be people taking advantage of it and Ebay itself would have to judge intent. In the alloy situation the intent to deceive would be clear. But do you really think if situations like the exact one you were in would not be taken advantage of by less scrupulous people if they could get away with it? And then what is Ebay supposed to do?

 

Slippery slope. Your title is intentionally misleading and why would you mention putting up a blurry photo? Was Trey's photo blurry? So, that is not "effectively what happened here".

While I don't see anything legally wrong with the auction title, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "acceptable" as I would never use such a title in an auction. But I see 100 auctions every day with worse titles and much worse descriptions, and 99% of those are probably "legal" and within FeeBay's policies.

If the buyer does file a claim for SNAD, FeeBay will likely side with the buyer. If Trey disputes the claim and refers to his description, FeeBay might reverse its initial decision. If they don't, Trey could always call up customer service and request that the matter be escalated to arbitration where the buyer would have no legal ground to stand on.

 

Well we are going no where arguing this in circles. I think we all know what ebay is going to do assuming the buyer takes it that far.

You do realize my only 'fault' in all of this is by not deleting either 90% from the title, or by adding 40% to it, right?

Where as the buyer just disregarded all of the necessary information that is used in purchasing items off of ebay and bought his coins SOLELY off the title.

It is quite clear to me who should have to pay for what. My little mistake shouldnt have altered the auction. Clearly it did though, so in the future I will have to be more careful. Pretty much end of story. Lesson learned. I will keep the thread updated on the status.

 

I have a simple answer to this: That's FeeBay's problem, not mine.

 

As for the title being intentionally misleading, there is no way of knowing Trey's was not also, which is my point. If such a thing was allowed then there would immediately be hundreds of auctions that are exact copies of his, hoping to catch the unaware/lazy/whatever.

The reason I included the fact the photo was blurry was the idea that one would be able to tell the difference between an alloyed coin and a normal one. I'm not an expert but am assuming that many buyers can not tell the difference between a 40% silver coin and a 90% one from a photo. The point being that when you say "Here's what I'm selling; here's a photo of them that looks like them" and then "Oops my description says otherwise" allows for definite abuse.

As for Feebay having other worse auctions out there that pass, that may be. I'm not arguing it is a perfect system.

As for how this is resolved, keep us updated Trey.

 

Right but then there would be people complaining when Feebay didn't side with them. As in what we have been discussing. Or, you think clearly the buyer is at fault? Even in the scenario where a less scrupulous seller than Trey did label this auction wrong intentionally?

 

That fault is significant. Not intentional, but it states you are selling one thing when you are really selling two, and it so happens the one you don't mention is worth significantly less than the one you do mention.

Anyway, best of luck. There is a chance you will win I suppose, but I just don't see them saying "Nope this guy didn't mean to; enforce it" and spawning hundreds of the same where the sellers DID mean it.

 

I have a simple answer to that too: Read the description before you bid on an auction. :yes:

 

Does that mean you would be fine with sellers taking rampant advantage, as in the gold example I gave?

 

As for his intent, the only place I think that matters is in our eyes since Trey is a member of our community and we hold our members to higher standards than we do other sellers on FeeBay. His title could be construed by some as misleading, but his description is beyond reproach. I understand your fears of rampant abuse on FeeBay Geoff, but I have news for you, it's already happening! Never buy an item on FeeBay without reading the entire description. Even then, you still have to have good scam intuition to make sure you are going to get everything you think you are.

 

Maybe another way of thinking about it is legally. No, not get lawyers involved, no one ever wants that, but legal theory. In common law and UCC, if it can be shown both parties believed the transaction was for different items, then no sale ever took place. The sale is simply rescinded and everyone goes back to where they were before the sale.

In my mind, having a title only reading 90% gives enough argument that the buyer COULD argue he thought they were all 90%. I understand Blaubart's point above, but in this instance Trey showed a pic of 4 Kennedies. Believe it or not many people do not know only 1964 dated coins were 90%. If Trey would have shown a pic of 2 90% kennedies and two large cents, I do not believe anyone would rationally believe the large copper colored coins were 90% silver. However, they were silver colored, Kennedy half dollars. THAT is why only a 90% title could be misleading to someone possibly. And if they were confused as to what they were buying because of that, then according to both common law and the UCC, no sale really ever took place.

Now, in the scheme of things I believe Trey is a good guy, and 99% of this is the buyers fault. BUT, that little 1% boo boo on his part I believe will be enough for Ebay to not enforce the sale. If I were a judge, I would probably reverse the sale in this instance as well.

Make sense?

 

I think the seller should man up and take responsibility for the mistake.