Actually, I sent Jcarney a PM, but I will bring it to the lawn here also...here is what I sent him in a PM:
Dont mean to stir the pot, but why diss me publicly and not the others who are of the opinion that sellers should be held accountable on situations like this?
There you go Jcarney...I am not trying to stir anything, but those of us who believe Superior should cough it up should ALL be blocked from your auctions...why just single me out? Because I have held an ebayer to the standards that HE agreed to when he signed up? Tell me YOU havent made a RIP when you KNEW it Jcarney....go on, tell me.....
Ziggy, in my state, Mass, when a consumer is made aware that a certain item is a certain price, THATS the price.....has happened before and will happen again
edited to add THIS:
One question to all those who disagree with those of us that would hold them accountable....WHY is there a B/S/T forum here? So members can get a better PRICE than working with a DEALER? I know there are other reasons, but this is DEFINITELY one of them...
<< <i><< It's no different than their policy on a regular auction. It's considered a contract. That said, from an enforcement standpoint the "contract" isn't worth the bytes it's written in.
Russ, NCNE >>
Really? What makes you so sure the contract wouldn't be enforced? I don't think the law on unilateral mistake is that great for sellers anymore. >>
The only way it would be enforced is if one of the participants filed suit. eBay will do nothing from an enforcement standpoint - nor should they.
<< <i>The only way it would be enforced is if one of the participants filed suit. eBay will do nothing from an enforcement standpoint - nor should they. >>
Ah, yes. "We are only a venue."
Until it's convenient for them to be more than just a venue, anyway.
only last month, I had 3 ebay BIN's in the Washington quarter series, all listed at BIN of $0.99...paid immediately through Paypal (was going to ask for a break on shipping for multiples, but what the heck, didnt want to rock the boat). I knew the seller wanted to START the auctions at $0.99, but hey....isnt that what a RIP is? The seller (who is a forum member, who is not greatly liked here and will remain nameless) requested that I allow him to relist as it would cost him $$$ (total of all 3 Washies was, according to PCGS price guide, $400 some odd dollars...figuring it STILL would have cost me at LEAST $175-$200 to get them)...HE MADE A MISTAKE!. I held my ground, reminded the seller its a legally binding contract (which CAN and SHOULD be upheld in a court of law, as my wife was ready to take the helm on this one if I didnt get what I had rightly bought and paid for according to the terms of Ebays terms of use, which state that each auction is a binding contract), and 4 days later, I got them in the mail...got positive feedback from him, and gave it in return. Simply put, it IS a binding contract, and to HELL if its a mistake or not.
Lucky you .... I would have told you what you could do with your 'binding contract'.
<< <i>only last month, I had 3 ebay BIN's in the Washington quarter series, all listed at BIN of $0.99...paid immediately through Paypal (was going to ask for a break on shipping for multiples, but what the heck, didnt want to rock the boat). I knew the seller wanted to START the auctions at $0.99, but hey....isnt that what a RIP is? The seller (who is a forum member, who is not greatly liked here and will remain nameless) requested that I allow him to relist as it would cost him $$$ (total of all 3 Washies was, according to PCGS price guide, $400 some odd dollars...figuring it STILL would have cost me at LEAST $175-$200 to get them)...HE MADE A MISTAKE!. I held my ground, reminded the seller its a legally binding contract (which CAN and SHOULD be upheld in a court of law, as my wife was ready to take the helm on this one if I didnt get what I had rightly bought and paid for according to the terms of Ebays terms of use, which state that each auction is a binding contract), and 4 days later, I got them in the mail...got positive feedback from him, and gave it in return. Simply put, it IS a binding contract, and to HELL if its a mistake or not.
Lucky you .... I would have told you what you could do with your 'binding contract'. >>
Gawd that is a pathetic rant on so many levels. My attorney could beat the crap out of yours, in court that is. I love it when folks threaten lawsuits, maybe that is what makes me a good poker player. I can't write on these forums what I would have said to you.
<< <i>Ziggy...you hit the nail on the head....lets all remember that once a price has been made to a consumer, THAT STORE HAS TO HONOR IT. >>
They don't HAVE to "honor it." The transaction isn't completed until the merchandise and the payment exchange hands.
A retail establishment needs to assess the immediate cost to the business of honoring that mistaken transaction versus the future cost (in lost sales and profits) of potentially losing that customer, and possibly others due to word of mouth. In the example I gave, the manager decided it wasn't worth the lost goodwill and perhaps losing a customer over a $90 loss.
In Superior's case, there were tens of thousands of dollars on the line. Plus, how many of the people who bid on these $1 mistakes were regular Superior customers and how many were just "one time customers" looking for a rip?
In a business case, that's what managers have to decide. If an established "whale" customer of yours stumbled onto a $200 coin listed for a buck, maybe you sell it to them for a buck -- protecting the HUGE amount of future sales likely from that customer. But if it's someone they've never done business with before, and probably someone just looking for a "rip" -- what makes them think they'll get repeat business at regular prices to justify eating the loss?
I think it's a sad commentary on ethics when anyone -- whether a buyer or a seller, whether a dealer or a collector -- tries to rip off another trading partner as a result of an OBVIOUS mistake, whether accidentally using a $1 BIN instead of a $1 starting bid, or because a buyer accidentally added another '0' or forgot the decimal point in their bid. >>
It's a toughy... I didn't BIN on any of the coins, but if a friend of mine made the mistake I would have BIN'ed them all (to get them off the market, then refund, yadda yadda). I have won auctions in the past where there was a pricing error, (the very few times it has happened) the dealer was just going to eat it, but I said "eh, mistakes happen. Cancel the transaction and buy me a coffee when I see you next (even though I would buy the wine later that night); we'll laugh about it later". Relationships are everything to me... it's only money.
~g
I listen to your voice like it was music, [ y o u ' r e ] the song I want to know.
I'd give you the world, just because...
Speak to me of loved ones, favorite places and things, loves lost and gained, tears shed for joy and sorrow, of when I see the sparkle in your eye ... and the blackness when the dream dies, of lovers, fools, adventurers and kings while I sip my wine and contemplate the Chi.
I too am of the opinion that it's a clerical error and shouldn't be pursued by a moral person. But will say that Superior's double standards are enough to piss a guy off and would awaken the fighting spirit in me, if I was involved. For that reason, I can understand trying to hold Superior accountable.
If Superior says it was an error then there is no contract and no sale. Period.
You could litigate it until the cows come home but there is still no deal as the error is obvious .
There are 3 essential elements to a contract and one of them - a meeting of the minds or mutual assent - is missing. In this case a material mistake makes the deal non-binding.
You are exactly correct and I would be ticked off with all the money I spent to send my wife to law school if she suggested otherwise. My guess is if this guy's wife really is an attorney she had never heard this story.
<< <i>It's a toughy... I didn't BIN on any of the coins, but if a friend of mine made the mistake I would have BIN'ed them all (to get them off the market, then refund, yadda yadda). I have won auctions in the past where there was a pricing error, (the very few times it has happened) the dealer was just going to eat it, but I said "eh, mistakes happen. Cancel the transaction and buy me a coffee when I see you next (even though I would buy the wine later that night); we'll laugh about it later". Relationships are everything to me... it's only money. >>
Well said AgMe,
That is why I said in my first post "live and let live". I would never hold a member or anyone else into selling something that they didn't want to sell (mistakes do happen and no one is perfect except my mother-inlaw just ask her). What teed me off, was the way Superior handled it after the fact (I would have been a little bit more humbled then they were), and the way Superior has their policy 19 worded. I hope after this, Superior rethinks it cold and hard stance with their policy 19 and treat people on a case by case bases, understanding that mistakes happen both ways.
<< For that reason, I can understand trying to hold Superior accountable. >>
There are a lot of people who only want to hold Superior "accountable" who, in reality, just want a cheap coin.
Agree, and for what exactly are we holding Superior accountable? Were the coins immediately sold sight-unseen to another party? Was there emotional anguish and a nervous breakdown from the sheer disappointment? What are the damages?
Thanks for all the answers every body (I think ), and thanks for trying to help me understand all this. I guess I have a lot to learn about stuff like this.
What Mr. Spock would say about numismatics... ... "Fascinating, but not logical"
In Washington State, if a retail outlet has something priced on the floor, and someone takes it to checkout where a higher price rings up, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price. Also, if the pricetag is higher than checkout price, again, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price.
I used to work retail and this came up a few times. A few people made out like a bandit on some items but it sure made sure the managers and their pricing flunkies started paying attention!
<< <i> ........ for what exactly are we holding Superior accountable? Were the coins immediately sold sight-unseen to another party? Was there emotional anguish and a nervous breakdown from the sheer disappointment? What are the damages? >>
Edited to add:
Not sure why my comments below are italized or how to get them back to normal.............
Again, I'm not advocating one position or another, just answering your question. "Holding Superior accountable" was implying holding Superior accountable for their mistake, same as they would attempt to hold you or me accountable if we had made the mistake. Personally, I don't like those kind of one-way relationships. Basically they're saying, "We get to screw you coming AND going, but in no circumstance will we acknowledge any law, rules, or accepted practice that allows you to get the upper hand on us." I'd never do biz with a company that had that attitude. Don't need to and Life's too short.
As for actually trying to recover something from them...........Lifes too short for that too.
Also, remember what I said in my first post on this thread...ORIGINALLY, I was in agreement with ALL members who figured they would never get the coins....I UNDERSTOOD that....it was only when TAClough brought up Superiors #19 that I waffled and got angered at Superior...they wont bend, neither should the members who BIN'ed those coins....now, in regard to my 3 BIN's, I said it before...these were from a forum member that is not particularly liked here, and if I posted after I BIN'ed him, as I was going to, I would NOT have gotten any flack, been accused of anything underhanded, nothing.
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, it IS a binding contract and SHOULD HAVE to be honored...plain and simple.....I understand this is nothing more than a pi**ing contest, but whats right is right...they made a mistake...but they DID sell those coins, plain and simple for $1.00, and renegged on the contract, did they not? If one of the members that took a BIN for $1.00, had bid on the coin and made an error and added an extra 0, do you think Superior would say "Its ok, we understand"?? NO, and they have it in their rule #19. Go back to the original thread and see what Deadhorse mentions on his mess for silver bars....HE had to honor his bid and the seller didnt let him out of it...Deadhorse did exactly what the seller I BIN'ed for those Washies did....LIVED UP TO THE AGREEMENT THAT HE PUT HIS ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE TO....and Superior should have to do the same thing... we are all expected to play by the same rules and should...anyone that doesnt want to, shouldnt be in the game.
Oh, and Irishmike....I NEVER stated or implied that I threatened any lawsuit...you should read things carefully before you spout off...... ESPECIALLY if you intend on using the word 'pathetic'...whats pathetic is when someone makes a statement when they dont fully understand what they are responding to....IE, they havent fully read and understood something, then make a contradictory statement...
<< <i>In Washington State, if a retail outlet has something priced on the floor, and someone takes it to checkout where a higher price rings up, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price. Also, if the pricetag is higher than checkout price, again, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price.
I used to work retail and this came up a few times. A few people made out like a bandit on some items but it sure made sure the managers and their pricing flunkies started paying attention! >>
That reminds me of a funny retail fau pax here in this area. Years ago one of those "Crazy Eddie" style stereo and electronics places was advertising a stereo system at THE INSANELY LOW PRICE OF ONLY 299 BANANAS!!!!! You guessed it. A whole bunch of people hit the grocery stores and bought bananas at 10¢ a pound and showed up with them to buy these stereo systems.
BTW, they honored the deal until they ran out of systems. Since it was all over every media outlet it was probably the best advetising they ever had.
<< <i>BTW, they honored the deal until they ran out of systems. Since it was all over every media outlet it was probably the best advetising they ever had.
Russ, NCNE >>
But the question is, did the business survive their sale?
Collecting coins, medals and currency featuring "The Sower"
<< <i>Oh, and Irishmike....I NEVER stated or implied that I threatened any lawsuit...you should read things carefully before you spout off...... ESPECIALLY if you intend on using the word 'pathetic'...whats pathetic is when someone makes a statement when they dont fully understand what they are responding to....IE, they havent fully read and understood something, then make a contradictory statement... >>
With statements like its a legally binding contract and should and could be upheld in a court of law and my wife was ready to take the helm on this sounds like you are the one spouting off. How exactly did you meant that then, maybe there is some other meaning to that threat that I didn't get. I will await your answer. One more time there has to be a meeting of the minds and the contract has to be entered into by folks who understand it. At least in my state in an error is made that should be obvious to one of the parties the contract is null and void. If your wife really is an attorney go to tell what I said. I would love to hear her response.
Ready willingly and able to apologize if you can convince me that you did not intend to threaten a law suit or take it to court and proof that your wife suggested you would win. But I already know this isn't going to happen. Tell her also that I would love to have you buy an item on ebay and try that crap with me.
It's not really about logic- it's about being able to do unto others as you would like the universe to treat you- allow others their mistakes because lord knows you'll make your own. Some people are just way too rigid about contracts, and looking for something for nothing....
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
Irishmike...there was in NO way a threat...all I was getting at was this: It IS a legally binding contract, and if the seller wanted to do what Superior IS doing, then she WOULD have taken the helm...she is an avid ebayer also, and KNOWS the facts....in the case of the three Washies that I BIN'ed...well, I will say it again...the seller is a forum member that is NOT in good standing with this crowd (something I do NOT wish to happen to me, but it doesnt seem to be going well in regard to my position with this Superior debacle), and I took this forum member to task....all I did was simply STATE EBAY RULES that each winning bid is a contract that each party is bound to complete...is it not Irishmike? In no way was there ANY intent on my part to do do ANYTHING legally. Now, as far as HER reply, here it is, and remember, you asked for it..... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A legally binding contract exists once an offer is made by one party and accepted by another, finally there must be consideration. You are right that there is to be a meeting of the minds -- but in the instance of a sale of simple goods the meeting must only be that one person has the good to sell and the other agrees to purchase at the price offered. If however there is an mistake that both parties make -- and thus no meeting of the minds, then the contract is null and void. A simple mistake is not enough. The concept of "Buyer Beware" originated in the fact that the law will not void a contract simply because it not's a good deal -- or after the fact, someone realizes it is not a good deal. If both parties believe that they are negotiating about the purchase of a cow who is capable of producing a calf and then it turns out that the cow is barren, then there is no enforceable contract. Again, this is not the case here. The posting of an item for auction is making an offer under common law (not to mention the rules of the auction site), that offer, once accepted becomes a legally binding contract. Once payment is rendered, the seller is then required to keep up his side of the bargain -- that is, deliver the goods. The law simply states then that if payment is made, the buyer can go to court to demand specific performance -- that is, have the court order the seller to do what the seller promised to do -- deliver the goods. Most such cases will be negotiated to some sort of settlement, but that's because the buyer does have a good case and recourse.
As you are probably aware common law is the basis of English law and American law and has been developed through statutory law, regulations and the case law that interprets it all. In most states there are consumer protection laws that, based on decided public policy of that state's legislature, alter the bargaining power of business v. consumer and provide remedies to consumers versus big business where none would have existed at common law. Again, those laws do not appear to be applicable here. When an EBay sale is between two individuals it is presumed that the bargaining power and the business acumen is relatively the same. The consumer protection statutes might come into play where an auction type sale is consummated between a business and an individual. The consumer protection laws were meant to address the perceived uneven bargaining power and the possible knowledge difference between an individual and a large company. Mismarked merchandise in a store must be sold for the price marked -- again an outgrowth of consumer protection statutes --- necessary to protect the little guy.
Yet most important are the rules that the parties agree to abide by and understand govern their buying and selling. EBay's rules clearly provide that placing a bid creates an enforceable contract -- and posting an auction anticipates the creation of an enforceable contract. Regardless of state law on the matter, any court will first look at the terms under which the relationship of buyer-seller was created to see what the parties intended. There is always a danger when you spell out what the rules are --- the courts will hold you to those rules. And there is even a greater danger if you are the one that wrote the rules --- you, then, have no excuse, and the courts will hold you to the rules you chose to create. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irishmike, those are her words between the borders....and I will also add this, there was no intent on either of our parts to follow through on a suit against the ebayer I had a dealing with....in fact, IF she were to threaten this gentleman, she BY ETHICS would have to follow through with a suit...you cannot THREATEN a lawsuit without the intention of going forward...and we did NOT do that. Think what you may about my position in this whole ordeal, but I feel whats right is right....
Tradedollarnut...all due respect again, but the mistake is NOT in the coin itself, its in the price....
For all those that disagree with my opinion, fine, thats your inherent right, but facts are facts, and every single person that bought those coins at $1.00, have recourse, a good claim, and if not actually obtaining the actual coin, could in fact get MUCH more than just a 10% duke on a future purchase.....this, of course, is all up to how good Superiors attorneys are..BUT their lawyers would actually have a LOT of work to do....and the costs associated with these may just not make it worth Superior to fight some of these claims, and vice versa the claimant...BUT, in theory and reality, there is a true cause of action that could be brought in front of a court, and not just a frivolous suit, not at ALL....bottom line, a better deal than just 10% off future purchase is more than just likely. They SHOULD be taken to task in this case...you KNOW according to Superiors rule #19 THEY WOULD TAKE YOUR A** to court, so, why should there be a double standard....thats my stance and, Irishmike, I await your apology, in regard to my statement immediately following hers about bringing a suit against that ebayer I dealt with and took to task in MY case.
Tradedollarnut...all due respect again, but the mistake is NOT in the coin itself, its in the price....
No, the mistake is in the LISTING. Superior did not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value. They made an error in the auction listing. The auction itself was invalid.
Tradedollarnut...that is an excellent point, should it have been an individual seller vs an individual buyer...say, you and I ...two INDIVIDUALS...however, Superior is a BUSINESS....
<< <i>Trying to understand this really is not logical.
It's not really about logic- it's about being able to do unto others as you would like the universe to treat you- allow others their mistakes because lord knows you'll make your own. Some people are just way too rigid about contracts, and looking for something for nothing.... >>
But that's why I asked my question about garage sales and stuff. If someone knows something is worth a lot more than what the person is selling it for and buys it and is proud about it...that isn't doing unto others the way you want to be treated. is it? I don't understand how it's ok one time and not the next.
Some people have said that getting something so cheap when you know what its worth is like stealing or something, but isn't it like stealing when you know how much something is worth at a garage sale and you buy it really cheap and don't tell the person how much it's worth?
To do whats right wouldn't it be right to give the person what it is worth even IF they don't ask for it? Isn't that doing to other people the way we want people to do to us too?
We are supposed to treat people the way we want to be treated all the time aren't we? Not just when one person knows how much something is worth and not when they don't.
That's what I don't get.
What Mr. Spock would say about numismatics... ... "Fascinating, but not logical"
Notlogical... a very good question and a very good reason for asking it. Those that are bashing me must think I am that way ALL the time...looking for something for nothing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just Tuesday nite, I went into the store to get some scotch tape and a pack of cigarettes (notlogical, STAY AWAY FROM THEM!). Gave the cashier a $20...rang it up and gave me change back of $17.90...forgetting to charge me for the cigarettes....I advised him that he didnt charge me the correct amount and he thanked me. Thats how I operate...when I had the three BIN's from ebay, the seller never offered me a thing in return for complying with his wish to just let him relist it.....had he offered me SOMETHING, damn straight I would have considered it and bent, but he DIDNT. Superior isnt doing that either, just sending peoples money back. This is why I feel so strongly about this situation....They took the time make listings, but didnt take the time to check the starting or BIN prices? They should be held accountable...thats my stance...not to get something for nothing. I am no trouble maker, but seek justice when justice should be done. Superior is casting these members aside that saw what was happening, and to snap them up for the GOOD of Superior, with their best interests at heart, is commendable...what Superior has done is anything BUT commendable...
Tradedollarnut...that is an excellent point, should it have been an individual seller vs an individual buyer...say, you and I ...two INDIVIDUALS...however, Superior is a BUSINESS....
Let me give you some analogies to help out. Your dad decides to buy you an new car but first you must sell your current vehicle. You shop it around to different lots, go to Edmunds.com and find a fair price, lets say 10 grand. You put a for sale sign on the car and mistakenly leave off a zero and it reads 1 grand. Someone comes along and offers you that price. Would you be obligated to sell it to them, no. Legally you are not even if the guy's wife is a lawyer and talks about her leading the charge.
Now you seem hung up on garage sales. Suppose a dealer in porcelain marobi cats is on the prowl for inventory. He has spent considerable time building a clientele base, spending money for a shop, advertising and studying marobi cats. He spots on at a gargae sale and knows its worth considerably more than the five dollar asking price. However he did not set the price, its a price a willing seller posted and he buys it. Was it illegal for him to do so, no. The seller had the opportunity to have anything in that garage sale appraised to find out its market value and chose not to. You can debate the ethical points of what happened but the law is on the side of the dealer. He did not cajole the seller into selling it to him. He made a profit becuase of the time and money he has spent in his profession. You may not think its fair to the seller but its not illegal.
Compare that to the pricing mistake, it was an error and therefore you are not obligated to sell it. You may feel bad about the mistake and decide to offer to mow the guys lawn or reduce the price but I am quite certain your dad would not allow you to sell it for that price. Its really apples and oranges in a court of law.
Everyone in life has a certain responsibility to have some knowledge when involved in commerce if not seek it. Laziness is no legal defense.
Lets say a customer walks into a business and buys an item for $10. He hands the store clerk a $20 bill. The store clerk owes him $10 change but erroneously hands him a $100 bill instead of a $10. The clerk then notices his error and asks for the $100 bill back. Is the customer entitled to keep it? If he walks out of the store with the $100 bill he is a thief, as is a person who tries to enforce a clearly erroneous $1 BIN.
Tradedollarnut...to make it clear...being a BUSINESS and selling coins, they are supposed to have business accumen...making a prudent decision to sell a coin for the an amount-pricing it appropriately as they are in business to KNOW what they are worth...they are EXPERTS...they are supposed to know what they are doing...the fact they didnt pay attention to the $$ amount is careless...who should bear the risk of the mistake? In business vs consumer, the BUSINESS bears the risk of the mistake...individual vs individual, its a different case...noone is holding themself out to be an expert...this would be decided by who knows more...whether either or both sides should have known it was a mistake....Superior SHOULD have known what to price these coins at...THEY are experts..THEY are in business to sell coins....THEY should KNOW in advance what the prices are going to show when they are put on auction, their website, etc ......
Lest we not forget that Superior = TAGZ = TIA. Had the mistake been on the other side of the fence you could expect the full fury of Superior's lawyers to try and pry the money from you. Why should it be any different when they make the error?
<< <i>No, the mistake is in the LISTING. Superior did not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value. >>
How many items are listed on eBay with no reserve and stating bid $0.99? Did who ever listed these item "not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value"? When an item is listed on eBay, even if an employee listed the item, is there an aproved password that needs to be given before information can be listed on the account? Once the information has been listed to sell an item on eBay, does the website ask for comfirmation before it is actually listed on eBay? So let me see if I got this right, Superior or its agent used it's / her's / he's knowledge to access the account, list the information, set the price and confirmed the information. Stupidity is not a defense here, nobody twisted Superiors arm to list the coins for auction, no one typed the information into eBay for them, and they confirmed the information themselves. Superior wrote their own policy 19 on dealing with their own auction on how to hold some ones feet to the fire, so if Superior wants to live by the sword then they can parish by the sword by adhereing to eBay's policy on completing a transaction. If someone doesn't want to let Superior off of the hook, that is between them and the Superior. But if the buyer want Superior to honor the transaction, eBay should enforce the auction like they have done in the past upto and including barring them from dealing on eBay
Courts, smourts...this should be about honor and not law...
I just think Superior could have gained a lot of goodwill by offering more than a generic computer glitch excuse and a not so remorseful apology. They could have said for their mishap, we will provide you something like the following: free shipping on a future purchase, possibly a free 2006 SAE or most unbelievale of all--the actual coin won... Woops, here come the something-for-nothing police--I need to bolt before they ask me for my ebay ID.
<< <i>this should be about honor and not law... >>
What honor is there in lowering oneself to the level of thief by trying to rip a coin for a $1?
CG >>
There is every bit as much honor as there would be in ripping an unknowing seller at a garage sale which is exactly what NotLogical was asking about in the OP. It makes not one bit of difference whether the seller offered a deal of this magnitude by making a mistake on the price or a seller offered a deal of of the same magnitude based on his lack of knowledge. To take advantage of him is wrong. Period. If it isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong for a dealer to take the same advantage of the probverbial little old widow lady. The results are EXACTLY THE SAME in all three instances.
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
Comments
Dont mean to stir the pot, but why diss me publicly and not the others who are of the opinion that sellers should be held accountable on situations like this?
There you go Jcarney...I am not trying to stir anything, but those of us who believe Superior should cough it up should ALL be blocked from your auctions...why just single me out? Because I have held an ebayer to the standards that HE agreed to when he signed up? Tell me YOU havent made a RIP when you KNEW it Jcarney....go on, tell me.....
Ziggy, in my state, Mass, when a consumer is made aware that a certain item is a certain price, THATS the price.....has happened before and will happen again
edited to add THIS:
One question to all those who disagree with those of us that would hold them accountable....WHY is there a B/S/T forum here? So members can get a better PRICE than working with a DEALER? I know there are other reasons, but this is DEFINITELY one of them...
<< <i><< It's no different than their policy on a regular auction. It's considered a contract. That said, from an enforcement standpoint the "contract" isn't worth the bytes it's written in.
Russ, NCNE >>
Really? What makes you so sure the contract wouldn't be enforced? I don't think the law on unilateral mistake is that great for sellers anymore. >>
The only way it would be enforced is if one of the participants filed suit. eBay will do nothing from an enforcement standpoint - nor should they.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>The only way it would be enforced is if one of the participants filed suit. eBay will do nothing from an enforcement standpoint - nor should they. >>
Ah, yes. "We are only a venue."
Until it's convenient for them to be more than just a venue, anyway.
Lucky you .... I would have told you what you could do with your 'binding contract'.
<< <i>only last month, I had 3 ebay BIN's in the Washington quarter series, all listed at BIN of $0.99...paid immediately through Paypal (was going to ask for a break on shipping for multiples, but what the heck, didnt want to rock the boat). I knew the seller wanted to START the auctions at $0.99, but hey....isnt that what a RIP is? The seller (who is a forum member, who is not greatly liked here and will remain nameless) requested that I allow him to relist as it would cost him $$$ (total of all 3 Washies was, according to PCGS price guide, $400 some odd dollars...figuring it STILL would have cost me at LEAST $175-$200 to get them)...HE MADE A MISTAKE!. I held my ground, reminded the seller its a legally binding contract (which CAN and SHOULD be upheld in a court of law, as my wife was ready to take the helm on this one if I didnt get what I had rightly bought and paid for according to the terms of Ebays terms of use, which state that each auction is a binding contract), and 4 days later, I got them in the mail...got positive feedback from him, and gave it in return. Simply put, it IS a binding contract, and to HELL if its a mistake or not.
Lucky you .... I would have told you what you could do with your 'binding contract'. >>
Gawd that is a pathetic rant on so many levels. My attorney could beat the crap out of yours, in court that is.
<< <i>
<< <i>Ziggy...you hit the nail on the head....lets all remember that once a price has been made to a consumer, THAT STORE HAS TO HONOR IT. >>
They don't HAVE to "honor it." The transaction isn't completed until the merchandise and the payment exchange hands.
A retail establishment needs to assess the immediate cost to the business of honoring that mistaken transaction versus the future cost (in lost sales and profits) of potentially losing that customer, and possibly others due to word of mouth. In the example I gave, the manager decided it wasn't worth the lost goodwill and perhaps losing a customer over a $90 loss.
In Superior's case, there were tens of thousands of dollars on the line. Plus, how many of the people who bid on these $1 mistakes were regular Superior customers and how many were just "one time customers" looking for a rip?
In a business case, that's what managers have to decide. If an established "whale" customer of yours stumbled onto a $200 coin listed for a buck, maybe you sell it to them for a buck -- protecting the HUGE amount of future sales likely from that customer. But if it's someone they've never done business with before, and probably someone just looking for a "rip" -- what makes them think they'll get repeat business at regular prices to justify eating the loss?
I think it's a sad commentary on ethics when anyone -- whether a buyer or a seller, whether a dealer or a collector -- tries to rip off another trading partner as a result of an OBVIOUS mistake, whether accidentally using a $1 BIN instead of a $1 starting bid, or because a buyer accidentally added another '0' or forgot the decimal point in their bid. >>
It's a toughy... I didn't BIN on any of the coins, but if a friend of mine made the mistake I would have BIN'ed them all (to get them off the market, then refund, yadda yadda). I have won auctions in the past where there was a pricing error, (the very few times it has happened) the dealer was just going to eat it, but I said "eh, mistakes happen. Cancel the transaction and buy me a coffee when I see you next (even though I would buy the wine later that night); we'll laugh about it later". Relationships are everything to me... it's only money.
~g
I'd give you the world, just because...
Speak to me of loved ones, favorite places and things, loves lost and gained, tears shed for joy and sorrow, of when I see the sparkle in your eye ...
and the blackness when the dream dies, of lovers, fools, adventurers and kings while I sip my wine and contemplate the Chi.
<< <i>For that reason, I can understand trying to hold Superior accountable. >>
There are a lot of people who only want to hold Superior "accountable" who, in reality, just want a cheap coin.
Russ, NCNE
You could litigate it until the cows come home but there is still no deal as the error is obvious .
There are 3 essential elements to a contract and one of them - a meeting of the minds or mutual assent - is missing. In this case a material mistake makes the deal non-binding.
Enjoy!
<< <i>
<< <i>For that reason, I can understand trying to hold Superior accountable. >>
There are a lot of people who only want to hold Superior "accountable" who, in reality, just want a cheap coin.
Russ, NCNE >>
I acknowledge the difference, and am not advocating that. The more they say, "Not me", the more I think they protest too much.
WRONG..... If this was true than no contract would be binding if one party cancels the contract for what ever cause.
<< <i>It's a toughy... I didn't BIN on any of the coins, but if a friend of mine made the mistake I would have BIN'ed them all (to get them off the market, then refund, yadda yadda). I have won auctions in the past where there was a pricing error, (the very few times it has happened) the dealer was just going to eat it, but I said "eh, mistakes happen. Cancel the transaction and buy me a coffee when I see you next (even though I would buy the wine later that night); we'll laugh about it later". Relationships are everything to me... it's only money. >>
Well said AgMe,
That is why I said in my first post "live and let live". I would never hold a member or anyone else into selling something that they didn't want to sell (mistakes do happen and no one is perfect except my mother-inlaw just ask her). What teed me off, was the way Superior handled it after the fact (I would have been a little bit more humbled then they were), and the way Superior has their policy 19 worded. I hope after this, Superior rethinks it cold and hard stance with their policy 19 and treat people on a case by case bases, understanding that mistakes happen both ways.
Tim
There are a lot of people who only want to hold Superior "accountable" who, in reality, just want a cheap coin.
Agree, and for what exactly are we holding Superior accountable? Were the coins immediately sold sight-unseen to another party? Was there emotional anguish and a nervous breakdown from the sheer disappointment? What are the damages?
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
Also, if the pricetag is higher than checkout price, again, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price.
I used to work retail and this came up a few times. A few people made out like a bandit on some items but it sure made sure the managers and their pricing flunkies started paying attention!
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Trying to understand this really is not logical.
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
<< <i> ........ for what exactly are we holding Superior accountable? Were the coins immediately sold sight-unseen to another party? Was there emotional anguish and a nervous breakdown from the sheer disappointment? What are the damages? >>
Edited to add:
Not sure why my comments below are italized or how to get them back to normal.............
Again, I'm not advocating one position or another, just answering your question. "Holding Superior accountable" was implying holding Superior accountable for their mistake, same as they would attempt to hold you or me accountable if we had made the mistake. Personally, I don't like those kind of one-way relationships. Basically they're saying, "We get to screw you coming AND going, but in no circumstance will we acknowledge any law, rules, or accepted practice that allows you to get the upper hand on us." I'd never do biz with a company that had that attitude. Don't need to and Life's too short.
As for actually trying to recover something from them...........Lifes too short for that too.
Tradedollarnut, with all due respect, it IS a binding contract and SHOULD HAVE to be honored...plain and simple.....I understand this is nothing more than a pi**ing contest, but whats right is right...they made a mistake...but they DID sell those coins, plain and simple for $1.00, and renegged on the contract, did they not? If one of the members that took a BIN for $1.00, had bid on the coin and made an error and added an extra 0, do you think Superior would say "Its ok, we understand"?? NO, and they have it in their rule #19. Go back to the original thread and see what Deadhorse mentions on his mess for silver bars....HE had to honor his bid and the seller didnt let him out of it...Deadhorse did exactly what the seller I BIN'ed for those Washies did....LIVED UP TO THE AGREEMENT THAT HE PUT HIS ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE TO....and Superior should have to do the same thing... we are all expected to play by the same rules and should...anyone that doesnt want to, shouldnt be in the game.
<< <i>In Washington State, if a retail outlet has something priced on the floor, and someone takes it to checkout where a higher price rings up, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price.
Also, if the pricetag is higher than checkout price, again, they are legally obligated to sell at the lower price.
I used to work retail and this came up a few times. A few people made out like a bandit on some items but it sure made sure the managers and their pricing flunkies started paying attention! >>
That reminds me of a funny retail fau pax here in this area. Years ago one of those "Crazy Eddie" style stereo and electronics places was advertising a stereo system at THE INSANELY LOW PRICE OF ONLY 299 BANANAS!!!!! You guessed it. A whole bunch of people hit the grocery stores and bought bananas at 10¢ a pound and showed up with them to buy these stereo systems.
BTW, they honored the deal until they ran out of systems. Since it was all over every media outlet it was probably the best advetising they ever had.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>BTW, they honored the deal until they ran out of systems. Since it was all over every media outlet it was probably the best advetising they ever had.
Russ, NCNE >>
But the question is, did the business survive their sale?
<< <i>But the question is, did the business survive their sale? >>
They could always pay their employees in bananas!
No, it's not - not when an obvious error has been made. There's no 'meeting of the minds' and it won't hold up in court.
<< <i>Oh, and Irishmike....I NEVER stated or implied that I threatened any lawsuit...you should read things carefully before you spout off...... ESPECIALLY if you intend on using the word 'pathetic'...whats pathetic is when someone makes a statement when they dont fully understand what they are responding to....IE, they havent fully read and understood something, then make a contradictory statement... >>
With statements like its a legally binding contract and should and could be upheld in a court of law and my wife was ready to take the helm on this sounds like you are the one spouting off. How exactly did you meant that then, maybe there is some other meaning to that threat that I didn't get. I will await your answer. One more time there has to be a meeting of the minds and the contract has to be entered into by folks who understand it. At least in my state in an error is made that should be obvious to one of the parties the contract is null and void. If your wife really is an attorney go to tell what I said. I would love to hear her response.
Ready willingly and able to apologize if you can convince me that you did not intend to threaten a law suit or take it to court and proof that your wife suggested you would win. But I already know this isn't going to happen. Tell her also that I would love to have you buy an item on ebay and try that crap with me.
It's not really about logic- it's about being able to do unto others as you would like the universe to treat you- allow others their mistakes because lord knows you'll make your own. Some people are just way too rigid about contracts, and looking for something for nothing....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A legally binding contract exists once an offer is made by one party and accepted by another, finally there must be consideration. You are right that there is to be a meeting of the minds -- but in the instance of a sale of simple goods the meeting must only be that one person has the good to sell and the other agrees to purchase at the price offered. If however there is an mistake that both parties make -- and thus no meeting of the minds, then the contract is null and void. A simple mistake is not enough. The concept of "Buyer Beware" originated in the fact that the law will not void a contract simply because it not's a good deal -- or after the fact, someone realizes it is not a good deal.
If both parties believe that they are negotiating about the purchase of a cow who is capable of producing a calf and then it turns out that the cow is barren, then there is no enforceable contract. Again, this is not the case here. The posting of an item for auction is making an offer under common law (not to mention the rules of the auction site), that offer, once accepted becomes a legally binding contract. Once payment is rendered, the seller is then required to keep up his side of the bargain -- that is, deliver the goods. The law simply states then that if payment is made, the buyer can go to court to demand specific performance -- that is, have the court order the seller to do what the seller promised to do -- deliver the goods. Most such cases will be negotiated to some sort of settlement, but that's because the buyer does have a good case and recourse.
As you are probably aware common law is the basis of English law and American law and has been developed through statutory law, regulations and the case law that interprets it all. In most states there are consumer protection laws that, based on decided public policy of that state's legislature, alter the bargaining power of business v. consumer and provide remedies to consumers versus big business where none would have existed at common law. Again, those laws do not appear to be applicable here. When an EBay sale is between two individuals it is presumed that the bargaining power and the business acumen is relatively the same. The consumer protection statutes might come into play where an auction type sale is consummated between a business and an individual. The consumer protection laws were meant to address the perceived uneven bargaining power and the possible knowledge difference between an individual and a large company. Mismarked merchandise in a store must be sold for the price marked -- again an outgrowth of consumer protection statutes --- necessary to protect the little guy.
Yet most important are the rules that the parties agree to abide by and understand govern their buying and selling. EBay's rules clearly provide that placing a bid creates an enforceable contract -- and posting an auction anticipates the creation of an enforceable contract.
Regardless of state law on the matter, any court will first look at the terms under which the relationship of buyer-seller was created to see what the parties intended. There is always a danger when you spell out what the rules are --- the courts will hold you to those rules. And there is even a greater danger if you are the one that wrote the rules --- you, then, have no excuse, and the courts will hold you to the rules you chose to create.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irishmike, those are her words between the borders....and I will also add this, there was no intent on either of our parts to follow through on a suit against the ebayer I had a dealing with....in fact, IF she were to threaten this gentleman, she BY ETHICS would have to follow through with a suit...you cannot THREATEN a lawsuit without the intention of going forward...and we did NOT do that. Think what you may about my position in this whole ordeal, but I feel whats right is right....
Tradedollarnut...all due respect again, but the mistake is NOT in the coin itself, its in the price....
For all those that disagree with my opinion, fine, thats your inherent right, but facts are facts, and every single person that bought those coins at $1.00, have recourse, a good claim, and if not actually obtaining the actual coin, could in fact get MUCH more than just a 10% duke on a future purchase.....this, of course, is all up to how good Superiors attorneys are..BUT their lawyers would actually have a LOT of work to do....and the costs associated with these may just not make it worth Superior to fight some of these claims, and vice versa the claimant...BUT, in theory and reality, there is a true cause of action that could be brought in front of a court, and not just a frivolous suit, not at ALL....bottom line, a better deal than just 10% off future purchase is more than just likely. They SHOULD be taken to task in this case...you KNOW according to Superiors rule #19 THEY WOULD TAKE YOUR A** to court, so, why should there be a double standard....thats my stance and, Irishmike, I await your apology, in regard to my statement immediately following hers about bringing a suit against that ebayer I dealt with and took to task in MY case.
No, the mistake is in the LISTING. Superior did not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value. They made an error in the auction listing. The auction itself was invalid.
<< <i>Trying to understand this really is not logical.
It's not really about logic- it's about being able to do unto others as you would like the universe to treat you- allow others their mistakes because lord knows you'll make your own. Some people are just way too rigid about contracts, and looking for something for nothing.... >>
But that's why I asked my question about garage sales and stuff. If someone knows something is worth a lot more than what the person is selling it for and buys it and is proud about it...that isn't doing unto others the way you want to be treated. is it? I don't understand how it's ok one time and not the next.
Some people have said that getting something so cheap when you know what its worth is like stealing or something, but isn't it like stealing when you know how much something is worth at a garage sale and you buy it really cheap and don't tell the person how much it's worth?
To do whats right wouldn't it be right to give the person what it is worth even IF they don't ask for it? Isn't that doing to other people the way we want people to do to us too?
We are supposed to treat people the way we want to be treated all the time aren't we? Not just when one person knows how much something is worth and not when they don't.
That's what I don't get.
"Live long and prosper"
My "How I Started" columns
Uhhmmm .... so??
Now you seem hung up on garage sales. Suppose a dealer in porcelain marobi cats is on the prowl for inventory. He has spent considerable time building a clientele base, spending money for a shop, advertising and studying marobi cats. He spots on at a gargae sale and knows its worth considerably more than the five dollar asking price. However he did not set the price, its a price a willing seller posted and he buys it. Was it illegal for him to do so, no. The seller had the opportunity to have anything in that garage sale appraised to find out its market value and chose not to. You can debate the ethical points of what happened but the law is on the side of the dealer. He did not cajole the seller into selling it to him. He made a profit becuase of the time and money he has spent in his profession. You may not think its fair to the seller but its not illegal.
Compare that to the pricing mistake, it was an error and therefore you are not obligated to sell it. You may feel bad about the mistake and decide to offer to mow the guys lawn or reduce the price but I am quite certain your dad would not allow you to sell it for that price. Its really apples and oranges in a court of law.
Everyone in life has a certain responsibility to have some knowledge when involved in commerce if not seek it. Laziness is no legal defense.
CG
<< <i>No, it's not - not when an obvious error has been made. There's no 'meeting of the minds' and it won't hold up in court.
>>
Zackly
roadrunner
<< <i>No, the mistake is in the LISTING. Superior did not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value. >>
How many items are listed on eBay with no reserve and stating bid $0.99? Did who ever listed these item "not use their knowledge in setting a price and make an error in their assessment of value"? When an item is listed on eBay, even if an employee listed the item, is there an aproved password that needs to be given before information can be listed on the account? Once the information has been listed to sell an item on eBay, does the website ask for comfirmation before it is actually listed on eBay? So let me see if I got this right, Superior or its agent used it's / her's / he's knowledge to access the account, list the information, set the price and confirmed the information. Stupidity is not a defense here, nobody twisted Superiors arm to list the coins for auction, no one typed the information into eBay for them, and they confirmed the information themselves. Superior wrote their own policy 19 on dealing with their own auction on how to hold some ones feet to the fire, so if Superior wants to live by the sword then they can parish by the sword by adhereing to eBay's policy on completing a transaction. If someone doesn't want to let Superior off of the hook, that is between them and the Superior. But if the buyer want Superior to honor the transaction, eBay should enforce the auction like they have done in the past upto and including barring them from dealing on eBay
JMHO,
Tim
CG
Anyone that thinks they should have gotten those coins for a dollar is full of crap.
It was an error, albeit quite a large one, but an error and an obvious one at that.
I just think Superior could have gained a lot of goodwill by offering more than a generic computer glitch excuse and a not so remorseful apology. They could have said for their mishap, we will provide you something like the following: free shipping on a future purchase, possibly a free 2006 SAE or most unbelievale of all--the actual coin won... Woops, here come the something-for-nothing police--I need to bolt before they ask me for my ebay ID.
<< <i>I can't believe this is still going on.
Anyone that thinks they should have gotten those coins for a dollar is full of crap.
It was an error, albeit quite a large one, but an error and an obvious one at that. >>
Would that be goose crap?
<< <i>this should be about honor and not law... >>
What honor is there in lowering oneself to the level of thief by trying to rip a coin for a $1?
CG
Tim
<< <i>
<< <i>this should be about honor and not law... >>
What honor is there in lowering oneself to the level of thief by trying to rip a coin for a $1?
CG >>
There is every bit as much honor as there would be in ripping an unknowing seller at a garage sale which is exactly what NotLogical was asking about in the OP. It makes not one bit of difference whether the seller offered a deal of this magnitude by making a mistake on the price or a seller offered a deal of of the same magnitude based on his lack of knowledge. To take advantage of him is wrong. Period. If it isn't wrong, then it isn't wrong for a dealer to take the same advantage of the probverbial little old widow lady. The results are EXACTLY THE SAME in all three instances.
Wow. My first time.