Hypothetical: Is it unethical to solicit a kickback from a consignor?

MrEureka

Let's say there's a coin on which you plan to bid very aggressively. You're virtually certain you'll buy it. Then, you realize that there's one other bidder that will probably outbid you. If you bid, you'll almost certainly be the underbidder and you'll probably cost the winner a small fortune. Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? Of course you may unexpectedly end up winning the coin, but you're OK with that.

Leiana

Sounds an awful lot like shill bidding to me.

-Amanda

MrEureka

Sounds an awful lot like shill bidding to me.

Not really. Shill bidders don't actually buy the coin when they win the auction.

Russ

It flunks the smell test.

Russ, NCNE

MikeInFL

Collusion is not right...Mike

MrEureka

Collusion is not right.

Is this collusion? Deal or no deal, the price realized will be no different.

LouisCamp

Most auction houses would toss you out.


Lou

Coxe

I believe that collusion may be illegal. You might be able to work out a deal with the other bidder, say he gives you half of the difference between your max bid and his winning bid if you don't bid and the winning bid is less than your proposed max. Saves him the other half whatever it ends up being based on the underbidder.

edit ---> Not that I am recommending this to anyone. I don't like rackets.

MrEureka

You might be able to work out a deal with the other bidder, say he gives you half of the difference between your max bid and his winning bid if you don't bid and the winning bid is less than your proposed max. Saves him the other half whatever it ends up being based on the underbidder.

That's the way "collusion" typically occurs. On the other hand, I doubt that holding up the consignor constitutes "collusion".

Aegis3

<< <i>Let's say there's a coin on which you plan to bid very aggressively. You're virtually certain you'll buy it. Then, you realize that there's one other bidder that will probably outbid you. If you bid, you'll almost certainly be the underbidder and you'll probably cost the winner a small fortune. Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? Of course you may unexpectedly end up winning the coin, but you're OK with that. >>



It certainly sounds unethical to me. Also, it would be a rather stupid consignor who accepts this deal.

We have bidder x willing to pay at least $a, who wants the coin but thinks he probably won't win it because he thinks bidder y might be willing to pay somewhat more than $a. We'll assume that probable second underbidder z is willing to pay $0.6a. So, if bidder x bids, the amount will be within one bid increment of $a. If he does not, it will be within one bid increment of $0.6a. So, if bidder x and consignor make a deal (and second underbidder drops out at 0.6a) than consingor will pay bidder x $0.2a if bidder y wins, and so nets $0.8a (less seller's fees). Whereas, it sounds like if no deal is made, bidder x will apparently still bid, but consignor will instead make about $a less seller's fee. It sounds that by making this deal, all the consignor is doing is effectly giving away $0.2a for nothing.

MrEureka

Whereas, it sounds like if no deal is made, bidder x will apparently still bid, but consignor will instead make about $a less seller's fee. It sounds that by making this deal, all the consignor is doing is effectly giving away $0.2a for nothing.

True, unless the bidder proposing this deal is prepared to not bid if a deal with the consignor cannot be consummated.

coinguy1

Andy, to be clear - are you going to bid, whether you cut a deal with the consignor or not?

If not, it's sounds like collusion. And if so, the consignor is paying you merely for keeping him in the same financial position he'd be in without the agreement. In other words, essentially, he's paying you for nothing, while you're getting paid for nothing. It sure sounds unethical to me.

Additionally, I believe that legally, such a contract would be lacking in "consideration" on your part - you wouldn't be giving up anything on your end.

Bochiman

<< <i>Andy, to be clear - are you going to bid, whether you cut a deal with the consignor or not?

If not, it's sounds like collusion. And if so, the consignor is paying you merely for keeping him in the same financial position he'd be in without the agreement. In other words, essentially, he's paying you for nothing, while you're getting paid for nothing. It sure sounds unethical to me.

Additionally, I believe that legally, such a contract would be lacking in "consideration" on your part - you wouldn't be giving up anything on your end. >>




I agree with the funny little main in the big nerd glasses and long white dress

MrEureka

Additionally, I believe that legally, such a contract would be lacking in "consideration" on your part - you wouldn't be giving up anything on your end.

First, "consideration" probably doesn't require that I give up something. It probably only requires that I provide something to the other party. And every time I raise my hand (after all other bidders have dropped out) I create wealth for the consignor.

But even if I'm wrong about what consitutes consideration, the fact is that I do give up something when bidding, simply by taking the risk that I will win the lot.

Aegis3

<< <i>Whereas, it sounds like if no deal is made, bidder x will apparently still bid, but consignor will instead make about $a less seller's fee. It sounds that by making this deal, all the consignor is doing is effectly giving away $0.2a for nothing.

True, unless the bidder proposing this deal is prepared to not bid if a deal with the consignor cannot be consummated. >>



In which case, all the consignor has to do (after rejecting the deal) is to set a reserve somewhere between $0.8a and $a if he has not already done so. If an idiot voluntarily reveals his bidding strategy, I would find it ok for the consignor to use to his advantage; further there would be no collusion as no agreement would be made.

MrEureka

n which case, all the consignor has to do (after rejecting the deal) is to set a reserve somewhere between $0.8a and $a if he has not already done so. If an idiot voluntarily reveals his bidding strategy, I would find it ok for the consignor to use to his advantage; further there would be no collusion as no agreement would be made.

Nobody has revealed specific bids. The proposal would simply be a split over the level at which all but one other bidder had dropped out.

coinguy1

<< <i>Additionally, I believe that legally, such a contract would be lacking in "consideration" on your part - you wouldn't be giving up anything on your end.

First, "consideration" probably doesn't require that I give up something. It probably only requires that I provide something to the other party. And every time I raise my hand (after all other bidders have dropped out) I create wealth for the consignor.

But even if I'm wrong about what consitutes consideration, the fact is that I do give up something when bidding, simply by taking the risk that I will win the lot. >>

Andy, to my knowledge, raising your hand to bid/providing that which you would be providing anyway, doesn't constitute consideration. Ditto for the risk that you would be taking in winning the lot, with or without the agreement.

Hence, the only way you'd be giving something of "value", would be if you bid only in the event of an agreement. And that would be collusion - guilty as charged!

MrEureka

Mark - As our resident legal beagle, please define "collusion" for us.

CarlWohlforth

If you are in a position to make a deal with the consignor, why didn't you make an offer on the coin before it went to auction? This hypothetical doesn't seem realistic to me.

Given the situation as stated I might talk with the person who I thought would outbid me if I was that kind of guy. If I knew the consignor I would have offered to buy the coin before it hit the auction block.

So I'm talking with my competition. Now will we but heads again? If so we could agree to not compete, he gets one, I get one. If that goes through the consignor should have made a deal with me in the first place.

IGWT

--"Nobody has revealed specific bids. The proposal would simply be a split over the level at which all but one other bidder had dropped out." --

But, if the max bid isn't revealed, then the consignor would only be kicking back one-half a bid increment, right? In any event, the "price realized" will be falsely reported, and there's got to be something wrong with that. Let's keep the private deals out of the public auctions.

coinguy1

<< <i>Mark - As our resident legal beagle, please define "collusion" for us. >>

Not my definitions: "A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose." and "A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit fraud upon another person".

ER

<< <i>Let's say there's a coin on which you plan to bid very aggressively. You're virtually certain you'll buy it. Then, you realize that there's one other bidder that will probably outbid you. If you bid, you'll almost certainly be the underbidder and you'll probably cost the winner a small fortune. Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? Of course you may unexpectedly end up winning the coin, but you're OK with that. >>



imho, if you do this, you are scum, no matter who you are. But that's just me.

bidask

Lets say you find a consignor willing do do this. Lets say there is alot of money involved. Lets say something goes wrong between you and the consignor and the agreement between you two is not honored( whether oral or in writing). Lets say that someone wants to recover damages. You both did not honor the auction terms and agreement. What case would either of you have?

ABC123

Totally Unethical----but don't let that stop you !

Aegis3

<< <i>n which case, all the consignor has to do (after rejecting the deal) is to set a reserve somewhere between $0.8a and $a if he has not already done so. If an idiot voluntarily reveals his bidding strategy, I would find it ok for the consignor to use to his advantage; further there would be no collusion as no agreement would be made.

Nobody has revealed specific bids. The proposal would simply be a split over the level at which all but one other bidder had dropped out. >>



Fine, he'll make an educated guess.

ER

Question to MrEureka: What would you do?

morgannut2

Classic Car Dealers do it all the time buying overpriced poorly restored cars in auction,,, On idea is to get a hand shake you'll sell the other dearer a say a chery 69 Camerio SS he rally wants near wholesale--assuning you win. The more common deal is the join up and one gut drop out of bidding early in screaming the price too high) Then it;'s sold 50-50-- and pray- hope you win it To make sure---I used to pay $200 a VERY Smarmy homeless Hippie to eat a smelly can of Sardines and pickles slopping them all over the hood---If the oposittion kept up bidding, he got a bonus for good smelly F@rts and wipe!!! -----------
------ Example: I bought a 1936 Ex; Lemans Sedan Touring car just that way for $2,900 +BP!!! at Manaheim (Lanchaster) Auction in O+Pennsylvabia, My friend got a Ferrari SuperAmerica S400 after out frind had lunch on the hood, and collapsed it so it woul not open! Cost $$7,800--he still has it and has been offered $655,000 LOL thought hood stll doesn't work right!!) LOL!

Connecticoin

Unethical.

MrEureka

<< Mark - As our resident legal beagle, please define "collusion" for us. >>

Not my definitions: "A secret agreement between two or more parties for a fraudulent, illegal, or deceitful purpose." and "A secret arrangement wherein two or more people whose legal interests seemingly conflict conspire to commit fraud upon another person".

None of this sounds like "fraud" to me. We have a real competitor bidding with real dollars. So what if the consignor has agreed to share the wealth?

MrEureka

If you are in a position to make a deal with the consignor, why didn't you make an offer on the coin before it went to auction?

Carl - Let's assume that I only know who consigned the coin because his name is revealed in the auction catalog.

MrEureka

But, if the max bid isn't revealed, then the consignor would only be kicking back one-half a bid increment, right?

Not necessarily. What if the bidding dies at 10K and it's just me and (hypothetically) Laura from 10K to 20K?


In any event, the "price realized" will be falsely reported

Is it? I'd be paying the reported amount to the auction company.

Let's keep the private deals out of the public auctions.

I can understand why you would want that, but why would I want that? No deal.

MrEureka

Lets say you find a consignor willing do do this. Lets say there is alot of money involved. Lets say something goes wrong between you and the consignor and the agreement between you two is not honored( whether oral or in writing). Lets say that someone wants to recover damages. You both did not honor the auction terms and agreement.

I don't know what the auction terms were but they are irrelevant to my contract with the consignor.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? >>



I think it would be no less ethical than hitting the likely winning bidder over the head with a large, heavy object just before the auction commences.

MrEureka

Question to MrEureka: What would you do?

If I were the consignor, I'd probably refuse the deal. Not because it would be unethical, but because once you start paying "protection money", it never ends.

If I were the likely underbidder? I don't know what I would do. That's why I asked my forum buddies for their opinions.

MrEureka

I think it would be no less ethical than hitting the likely winning bidder over the head with a large, heavy object just before the auction commences.

That's a solution I think I can live with!

IGWT

<< <i>But, if the max bid isn't revealed, then the consignor would only be kicking back one-half a bid increment, right?

Not necessarily. What if the bidding dies at 10K and it's just me and (hypothetically) Laura from 10K to 20K? >>



I'm stupid when it comes to these schemes . . . is Laura playing the role of the other bidder? If so, you step up the bidding with her in increments to 18K (your undisclosed max), she wins at 20K, and the consignor pays you 1K. What am I not understanding?



<< <i>In any event, the "price realized" will be falsely reported.

Is it? I'd be paying the reported amount to the auction company. >>



Of course it is. Just because the auction house didn't participate in the shenanigans doesn't mean that the price wasn't falsely reported. Did you work with K. Lay?

Coinosaurus

I sure hope this deal works retroactively. If so, a lot of people owe me money

Newmismatist

<< <i>Let's say there's a coin on which you plan to bid very aggressively. You're virtually certain you'll buy it. Then, you realize that there's one other bidder that will probably outbid you. If you bid, you'll almost certainly be the underbidder and you'll probably cost the winner a small fortune. Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? Of course you may unexpectedly end up winning the coin, but you're OK with that. >>



Not merely unethical, but illegal. A Bidder can bid any price he wants to buy an item BUT as soon as he enters into an agreement to bid for the purpose of driving up the price that the winner will pay by an agreement to benfit the consignor the bidder has crossed the line and entered into a criminal conspiracy. Here the criminal conspiracy will be easily proven because the "bidder" will share the "profit' of the amount that the buyer over pays. Don't believe it? Well, read this:

"SHILL BIDDING" EXPOSED IN ONLINE AUCTIONS
Phony Bids Inflate Selling Price of Auctioned Artwork, Sports Memorabilia and Other Merchandise


New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced the resolution of three cases arising from an investigation of phony bids in on-line auctions.

In the first case, three individuals pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from actions they took to inflate the prices of artwork and other merchandise that was sold in E-Bay auctions. In two other cases, defendants entered into civil settlements with the Attorney General's office for illegally bidding up sports memorabilia and automobiles sold in on-line auctions.

"The use of shill bids in on-line auctions illegally drives up prices and defrauds consumers," Spitzer said. "These cases and continuing efforts to monitor transactions should help maintain the integrity of on-line auctions."

Spitzer commended E-Bay for the valuable assistance it provided to his office, as it investigated the matter.

In the criminal case, Jerrold Schuster, the former owner of the New Windsor Auction Gallery, pleaded guilty in the County Court of Orange County in Goshen, to Combination in Restraint of Trade, a violation of the New York antitrust law, a felony punishable by a maximum of four years in prison. Schuster 's former employees, Darek Szydlowski and Francis Komsisky, Jr., pleaded guilty to Attempted Combination in Restraint of Trade, a misdemeanor antitrust violation, which is punishable by up to one year in prison. As part of the disposition, Schuster is expected to pay $50,000 in restitution and fines.

According to the criminal charges, Schuster, Szydlowski and Komsisky cast bids in over 1,100 of each others' eBay auctions for the sole purpose of driving up the price of the merchandise that they offered for sale over a five-year period. The defendants were known by various e-Bay User IDs including "sambuca914," "gutek914," "zugnicht," and "fourlizards."

In a separate civil case, Robert Baranovich and his son, Steven Baranovich, of West Babylon, agreed to pay $10,000 in penalties and restitution to consumers harmed by their shill bidding. In a complaint filed with the Consent Order settling the case, the Attorney General alleged that the Baranoviches placed 170 phony bids in 165 of their own E-Bay auctions of sports memorabilia.

In another civil case, Richard Eggleston, Darryl Lien, and David Printy, together with a related corporation, Daryl Lien, Inc., agreed to pay more than $28,000 in penalties and restitution for their shill bidding practices. In a complaint filed with the Consent Order, the Attorney General alleged that they placed 610 bids in 106 of their own auto auctions under the user ID "Mother's Custom Automotive NY Dealer."

The Attorney General's office has identified more than 120 consumers who paid more for items as a result of shill bidding activities in the three cases. Settlements will provide compensation to these individuals. The damages are as high as several thousand dollars for some consumers.

For example, in one auction, Schuster's New Windsor Gallery "shilled up" by more than $7,300 an oil painting attributed to Hudson River School artist Ralph Blakelock (1847-1919). The high bidder paid $7,500 for the painting. Another purported Blakelock fetched $3,000 – shilled up by more than $2,800. The Gallery shilled up its auction of an antique cloisonne vase by more than $2,500 – ultimately selling for $3,250. Yet another bidder was overcharged $2,372, for art work he purchased in over thirty separate auctions.

In one of Daryl Lien Inc.'s online auctions, the high bidder for a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee overpaid by more than $3,000. In one of the Baranoviches' auctions, the purchaser of a bat signed by the 2000 New York Yankees paid $999 – a sum shilled up $175 from its previous high bid of $824.

The cases were handled by Stephen Kline of the Attorney General's Internet Bureau, Michelle Maerov of the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau, Howard Wettan of the Antitrust Bureau, and Kenneth Dreifach, who is Chief of the Internet Bureau. Hampton Finer, Chief Economist for the Antitrust Bureau, Vanessa Ip, Investigator for the Internet Bureau, and Brian Ford of the Investigations Bureau also assisted in these investigations.

bidask

<< <i> Lets say you find a consignor willing do do this. Lets say there is alot of money involved. Lets say something goes wrong between you and the consignor and the agreement between you two is not honored( whether oral or in writing). Lets say that someone wants to recover damages. You both did not honor the auction terms and agreement.

I don't know what the auction terms were but they are irrelevant to my contract with the consignor. >>

The auction terms found on their website, etc. Are you sure their irrelevant.? You think one of you could legally pursue the other outside the terms of the auction? Just asking, I am no attorney.

bidask

<< <i>

<< <i>Let's say there's a coin on which you plan to bid very aggressively. You're virtually certain you'll buy it. Then, you realize that there's one other bidder that will probably outbid you. If you bid, you'll almost certainly be the underbidder and you'll probably cost the winner a small fortune. Would it be unethical to cut a deal with the consignor where he pays you half of everything you cost the winning bidder? Of course you may unexpectedly end up winning the coin, but you're OK with that. >>



Not merely unethical, but illegal. A Bidder can bid any price he wants to buy an item BUT as soon as he enters into an agreement to bid for the purpose of driving up the price that the winner will pay by an agreement to benfit the consignor the bidder has crossed the line and entered into a criminal conspiracy. Here the criminal conspiracy will be easily proven because the "bidder" will share the "profit' of the amount that the buyer over pays. Don't believe it? Well, read this:

"SHILL BIDDING" EXPOSED IN ONLINE AUCTIONS
Phony Bids Inflate Selling Price of Auctioned Artwork, Sports Memorabilia and Other Merchandise


New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer today announced the resolution of three cases arising from an investigation of phony bids in on-line auctions.

In the first case, three individuals pleaded guilty to criminal charges stemming from actions they took to inflate the prices of artwork and other merchandise that was sold in E-Bay auctions. In two other cases, defendants entered into civil settlements with the Attorney General's office for illegally bidding up sports memorabilia and automobiles sold in on-line auctions.

"The use of shill bids in on-line auctions illegally drives up prices and defrauds consumers," Spitzer said. "These cases and continuing efforts to monitor transactions should help maintain the integrity of on-line auctions."

Spitzer commended E-Bay for the valuable assistance it provided to his office, as it investigated the matter.

In the criminal case, Jerrold Schuster, the former owner of the New Windsor Auction Gallery, pleaded guilty in the County Court of Orange County in Goshen, to Combination in Restraint of Trade, a violation of the New York antitrust law, a felony punishable by a maximum of four years in prison. Schuster 's former employees, Darek Szydlowski and Francis Komsisky, Jr., pleaded guilty to Attempted Combination in Restraint of Trade, a misdemeanor antitrust violation, which is punishable by up to one year in prison. As part of the disposition, Schuster is expected to pay $50,000 in restitution and fines.

According to the criminal charges, Schuster, Szydlowski and Komsisky cast bids in over 1,100 of each others' eBay auctions for the sole purpose of driving up the price of the merchandise that they offered for sale over a five-year period. The defendants were known by various e-Bay User IDs including "sambuca914," "gutek914," "zugnicht," and "fourlizards."

In a separate civil case, Robert Baranovich and his son, Steven Baranovich, of West Babylon, agreed to pay $10,000 in penalties and restitution to consumers harmed by their shill bidding. In a complaint filed with the Consent Order settling the case, the Attorney General alleged that the Baranoviches placed 170 phony bids in 165 of their own E-Bay auctions of sports memorabilia.

In another civil case, Richard Eggleston, Darryl Lien, and David Printy, together with a related corporation, Daryl Lien, Inc., agreed to pay more than $28,000 in penalties and restitution for their shill bidding practices. In a complaint filed with the Consent Order, the Attorney General alleged that they placed 610 bids in 106 of their own auto auctions under the user ID "Mother's Custom Automotive NY Dealer."

The Attorney General's office has identified more than 120 consumers who paid more for items as a result of shill bidding activities in the three cases. Settlements will provide compensation to these individuals. The damages are as high as several thousand dollars for some consumers.

For example, in one auction, Schuster's New Windsor Gallery "shilled up" by more than $7,300 an oil painting attributed to Hudson River School artist Ralph Blakelock (1847-1919). The high bidder paid $7,500 for the painting. Another purported Blakelock fetched $3,000 – shilled up by more than $2,800. The Gallery shilled up its auction of an antique cloisonne vase by more than $2,500 – ultimately selling for $3,250. Yet another bidder was overcharged $2,372, for art work he purchased in over thirty separate auctions.

In one of Daryl Lien Inc.'s online auctions, the high bidder for a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee overpaid by more than $3,000. In one of the Baranoviches' auctions, the purchaser of a bat signed by the 2000 New York Yankees paid $999 – a sum shilled up $175 from its previous high bid of $824.

The cases were handled by Stephen Kline of the Attorney General's Internet Bureau, Michelle Maerov of the Criminal Prosecutions Bureau, Howard Wettan of the Antitrust Bureau, and Kenneth Dreifach, who is Chief of the Internet Bureau. Hampton Finer, Chief Economist for the Antitrust Bureau, Vanessa Ip, Investigator for the Internet Bureau, and Brian Ford of the Investigations Bureau also assisted in these investigations. >>

bidask

Elliot Spitzer's interpretation answers that!

MrEureka

ccording to the criminal charges, Schuster, Szydlowski and Komsisky cast bids in over 1,100 of each others' eBay auctions for the sole purpose of driving up the price of the merchandise that they offered for sale

The difference is that Schuster & Co bid without the potential to actually buy. In my scenario, the bid was real but subsidized.

And a side note to goose: I happen to know Schuster, albeit not well, and have enjoyed bidding in his auctions.

MrEureka

A Bidder can bid any price he wants to buy an item BUT as soon as he enters into an agreement to bid for the purpose of driving up the price that the winner will pay by an agreement to benfit the consignor the bidder has crossed the line and entered into a criminal conspiracy.

Ron - There's nothing wrong with purposefully running up another bidder. I do it all the time to keep the competition "honest". Although I have yet to receive "unusual" compensation for doing so, how would participating in the consignor's windfall make it wrong?

Newmismatist

<< <i>A Bidder can bid any price he wants to buy an item BUT as soon as he enters into an agreement to bid for the purpose of driving up the price that the winner will pay by an agreement to benfit the consignor the bidder has crossed the line and entered into a criminal conspiracy.

Ron - There's nothing wrong with purposefully running up another bidder. I do it all the time to keep the competition "honest". Although I have yet to receive "unusual" compensation for doing so, how would participating in the consignor's windfall make it wrong? >>



Andy

If I had to defend you in a Court of law, I'd want my entire fee paid in advance. After the verdict, the fines and costs, not to mention the possible jail sentence, might prevent payment.

It's the AGREEMENT to run up the bid that's illegal (and to be paid to do so), the fact that you are to be paid by the CONSIGNOR for running up the bid is the Proof that will convict.

michael

sounds good to me andy as long as it is kept in-between the parties and done off premsis before the auction

Aegis3

Upon further thought isn't this scenario just a blackmail scheme: pay me money or I'll hurt you (financially to an even larger extant than just by paying me)?

MrEureka

Upon further thought isn't this scenario just a blackmail scheme: pay me money or I'll hurt you (financially to an even larger extant than just by paying me)?

I presume you mean "extortion", not "blackmail". That said, doesn't extortion require a threat of action? Can a threat of inaction constitute extortion? If so, can you provide an example?

morgannut2

I assume all biiding is shilled--- grow up! On the flip side, the true art of overcoming this practice is bidders getting together on rarer items with a thin market. I particularly like the idea of hitting a shill over the head w/ a baseball bat just before the auction starts---but finding him a loose lady of the night to occupy him carries less liability.--Plus the photos might be useful later--

IrishMike

Don't know about the illegality of it but is smells like that stuff I spray around the border of my wife's plants to keep the bunnies and deer away from them. The problem as I see it, is that it walks the line and I would wonder what other schemes the person would be capable of.

IGWT

Say the consignor makes the offer instead of the prospective bidder. That is, suppose it's the consignor who offers to split the amount by which the bidder drives the price up, and all other conditions stay the same. This situation seems worse than the scenario that MrEureka set out. But it's not . . . the agreement is exactly the same regardless of who makes the offer and who accepts.

Longacre

I thought mutual promises are enough for consideration.

Anyway, this idea just does not seem right to me.