<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
Post of the DECADE. >>
It would be more conclusive if one actually saw that coin in that slab, not just some picture overlaid.
<< <i> << After reading this thread and the complaint, I hope the Judge has the intestinal fortitude to give a summary judgment to the Defendants and award the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees. When Judges start doing this then it might end some of these stupid law suits. >>
So judges should make decisions without even having a trial? >>
What part of “nuisance” do you not understand? Judges make rulings all the time if a case as enough merits to even waste the time of a trial.
<< <i> << I noticed some posts in this thread that alludes to eBay being the same as Microsoft. Get real, eBay is no way the monopoly that Microsoft is. >>
Ebay has over a 95% share of the online auction market. Microsoft has viable competition from Apple, Linux, Sun. >>
Apples to oranges. The “Anti Trust” laws that Microsoft stubbed their toes on are in no way the same thing that is going on with eBay. If eBay was an “Anti Trust” case, then either the US Attorney’s Office or a State’s Attorney General’s Office would start the case if there were any merits to it.
<< <i> << Getting back to the Complaint that was filed, what standing does PCI, NNC or Accugrade have? I wasn’t aware that PCI, NNC or Accugrade sold any coins on eBay. If these three companies do sell on eBay, are they a “Third Party Grading” company or a “First Party Grading” company. >>
Any bottleneck or restriction in a chain of distribution affects everyone upstream and downstream. You think David Hall wouldn't sue ebay if they banned PCGS coins? >>
Whether I could sell a PCGS coin on eBay or not, is none of David Hall’s business period. David Hall may not like the fact that eBay will not let anyone list a coin graded by PCGS on their site but he would have no “standing” in the case unless he had a financial stake in the coin I was trying to sell. If PCGS had a financial interest in a PCGS graded coin that I was selling, then PCGS would not be an “independent third party” to the buy / sell relationship.
I agree with an earlier post that said have categories that just say "Certfied by NGC or PCGS" and one that says "Not/Other". Just that simple, no discrimination. I also think eBay should absoltuely NARU all parties and related parties to the suit until the case is adjudicated (in 2020).
<< <i> << This message is being posted for SEGS Grading Service.
Just for the record (not that anyone on this board cares) SEGS Grading Service is not part of the suite filed... No member at SEGS talked to or corresponded with the representing law firm, nothing was signed or authorized, nor was any money paid. >>
I'm hoping that we see more input from this poster (because we on this forum, many of us at least, DO care - or at least are mildly interested) >>
Yes for sure, I can't wait for his or her 7th post. Lot of creditability there. I doubt they made a true statement. >>
Is some one talking about creditability that hides their profile? Is this like the “pot calling the kettle black?” I fail to see what someone’s post count has to do with the truthfulness of their statement. Get a life!
<< <i>I also think eBay should absoltuely NARU all parties and related parties to the suit until the case is adjudicated (in 2020). >>
I think that would be a huge legal mistake. >>
Why? Because they may sue eBay?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>A company simply can't say we don't want to do business with someone who is suing us? >>
They can, but I think it just makes them look like a retaliatory, monopolistic bully, and that's probably not a good seed to plant in the minds of a jury since that's sure to be at least some of what the plaintiffs will try to establish. No need to help them make their case.
Briggs was serious about suing ebay, and no attorney would file a lawsuit with a signed retainer agreement from the party represented. Even if some of the other plaintiffs are considered unsavory, it still makes sense to join them rather than file separately.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
This can and probably will get very interesting as several old adages and precedents fall on BOTH sides of the fence/ argument. For example:
Remember this one? In some establishments, with negative implications, it still holds true to this very day ....
* "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Unruly, disorderly customers immediately come to mind but it also implies being biased (and worse) it rears up imagery of the ugliness of Racism. (A point for consideration.)
* The Age old cop out that "Grading is subjective", in this situation, will work in favor of the Plaintiffs. Beware of double-edged swords.
Services referred to as "reputable" do themselves NO favors when customers refer to them as the Best on one hand yet complain of coins being under-graded on the other and that with each re-submission per crackout, any given coin will grade differently each time sent in for regrade Like it or not, again this favors the Plaintiffs. Inconsistency/ grades within grades, grading curves that change from submitter to submitter depending on any set of variables that are denied and dismissed as being untruths, once again favors the Plaintiffs.
We, experienced Numismatists see blatanly obvious, grossly overgraded coins that are nowhere close to some of the advertised grades in some of the "slabs" deemed unacceptable whereas many an innocent newcomer knows no difference. By the same token, we also recognize coins under-graded by the services deemed Approved.
Because of these facts, which are but a few of all there is, like it or not, the Courts basing their decision unbiasedly along these lines (IMHO/ right or wrong) undoubtedly will rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. Like it and the or not, this IS America and as such these co-called Services have the Right to make a living.
I've read this entire thread with an open mind and while I have my own beliefs and experience, as all of us do, it's hard to see a different outcome. The argument that Grading is subjective and little more than one's paid for Opinion IS the very argument that will find for the Plaintiffs. Whether I or you know better and totally disagree makes no difference.
In such case it will be incumbent upon potential buyers to educate themselves. My opinion in this case does not reflect what I believe in as being right or wrong.
<< <i>I for one think what ebay is doing is just wrong (not that I completely side with the TPGs shut out)...but for many other reasons than just what people have already mentioned. Perhaps I will delve into my reasons later...I just want to ask this for now.
Not necessarily my beef with all this, but just to play a little DA...
Would you be okay with ebay banning a clothing maker of good quality clothing (that is not traded publically) but uses different measurements for the S, M, L, XL, XXL etc. from using the S, M, L, XL, XXL etc. in the title?
morris >>
Does your clothing manufacturer charge radically different prices based on size? >>
Thats not the point...its not that they are not allowing the tpg to exist on ebay, it is that their coins and others raw coins are not allowed to put the numerical grade in the title...which you know has been around for many years prior to any TPG existing.
morris
"Repent, for the kindom of heaven is at hand." ** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! ** Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY 28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST TEMECULA, CA 92590 (951) 757-0334
They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000 that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i> << They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay. Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000 that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay. >>
So people submit coins to grading companies for the sole purpose of selling on eBay? If a customer of SEGS decided for what ever reason to pull is order, that is not eBay’s problem nor should it be. Personally I see nothing wrong with SEGS slabs, the ones that I have bought have all crossed over to PCGS, grade for grade (wish I could say the same for ICG).
With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees.
They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000 that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay. >>
Not unmarketable, just inconvenient. And I think that there was another thread that showed raw coins selling for more than (net) graded ones, anyway.
<< <i> With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else. >>
Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees. >>
It's not a case of discrimination, it's restraint of trade. Suppose a company marketed a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Obviously that threatens the profits of the big oil companies. They can't directly put the maker of the 100 mpg car out of business, but the oil companies could take a survey of gas stations (who also would lose money) and declare the car "unapproved." While they don't outright refuse to sell gasoline to the owners of the little cars, they institute "restrictions" to "protect" the public. Like owners of the efficient car can buy gas only between midnight at 6 am, that the buyer of gas won't know the price or the grade....
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
I like that coin a lot, regardless of what slab it's in or what grade is on the slab. That toning delicately clinging around the relief devices is absolutely original, and if a return privilege was offered, I'd probably pay $100 for it.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i> With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else. >>
Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees. >>
It's not a case of discrimination, it's restraint of trade. Suppose a company marketed a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Obviously that threatens the profits of the big oil companies. They can't directly put the maker of the 100 mpg car out of business, but the oil companies could take a survey of gas stations (who also would lose money) and declare the car "unapproved." While they don't outright refuse to sell gasoline to the owners of the little cars, they institute "restrictions" to "protect" the public. Like owners of the efficient car can buy gas only between midnight at 6 am, that the buyer of gas won't know the price or the grade.... >>
e) Furnishing services or facilities for processing, handling, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.
and Sec 13a
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
--- Charging the same rates to list "unapproved" slabs while not giving them the same visibility could certainly fall under these rules. So could making sellers of "approved" slabs pay extra for additional pictures
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i> Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers. >>
OK if you want to narrow it down to just internet sales of coins, there are still other avenues to sell then just eBay. To even say eBay has a monopoly on internet sales is a reach. Again, if a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules, let them start their own web site. I buy several coins in the course of a year on the internet without always using eBay (most upgrades, at least eighty percent, are non eBay purchases).
<< <i>While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers. >>
I'm sure many don't. What's not clear is why it is eBay's obligation to provide a place for those people to sell their stuff.
Ever since eBay opened for business, their policies have been more or less continually modified and new ones added. It would be a stretch to conclude that none of those changes have presented difficulties for some sellers, and the current situation is no different.
If you don't like eBay's rules or think they're fair, don't do business there. Seems easy enough to figure out. Why don't those people who don't like how they're being treated just go back to what they were doing before eBay?
<< <i>If you don't like eBay's rules or think they're fair, don't do business there. Seems easy enough to figure out. Why don't those people who don't like how they're being treated just go back to what they were doing before eBay? >>
Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage?
<< <i>At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >> >>
<< <i> like that coin a lot, regardless of what slab it's in or what grade is on the slab. That toning delicately clinging around the relief devices is absolutely original, and if a return privilege was offered, I'd probably pay $100 for it. >>
I did not pay $100.00 but I did like like coin for $16.00 It was just a matter of looks for me,I did ignore the grade
This has got to be the biggest circle jerk that I have ever read. Let's put a few items in the limelight.
Ebay provides an outlet (venue...e.tc) for sellers to get their materials to buyers.
Ebay DOES NOT CHARGE prior to the listing of the item or items in question till the person, company....checks off that they UNDERSTAND ebay listing policies. therefore, there is no committment from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding for the listing.
These companies were around prior to the existance of Ebay....does that make it right to sue for change in policies that affect trade??? NO, they can always take their business back to where they were prior....aka...shows, rags.......remember, Ebay is the OUTLET and doesn't collect charges for an auction whether it sells or not IF THE CONSIGNOR DOESN'T AGREE TO THE LISTING AGREEMENT and checks off that little box.
The companies are not product sponsors, nor do they pay listing advancements (ie....ebay collects no monies held in prior escrow to listings) so they cannot sue regarding lost monies as the companies cannot list there items unless the agreement was acknowleged.
If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies...Ebay would only be able to collect on completed listings, not ones that are current to the closure...so why do these companies think that they can get due monies??? (see argument regarding advance pay).
Everyone has the right to sell items on ebay providing that they follow the guidelines set in the policies....get over it...
This is a very dumb ass thread. - Laura Sperber - Tuesday January 09, 2007 11:16 AM
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
>>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit.
<< <i>If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies... >>
So you're saying I can't sue Yahoo for shutting down their auction business and denying me the right to sell my stuff there, free of the eBay monopoly? Bummer.
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
>>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit. >>
You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. You seem to be overdoing it. Remember the wise old Irish mantra, "if everyone says you're drunk, you better sit down"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. >>
Not protesting, clarifying.
I simply think people who are acting as if the world actually *is* as they think it *should* be regarding a business' absolute right to choose how (and with whom) they do business are not only fooling themselves, but also displaying an offputting, dismissive attitude in this thread that acts as if anyone who doesn't see it as open-and-shut as they do is a whiner. There have been plenty of laws and court cases concerning those laws which place limits on that right, regardless of whether we agree with the legal conclusions. (As a libertarian I generally don't agree with these infringements on private businesses, but that doesn't stop them from happening.)
[Edit to add: And for what it's worth, I mostly *do* side with eBay on this one but I certainly don't think their case is as open-and-shut as some think it is, and I don't think every assertion being made in the suit can be summarily dismissed as frivolous.]
<< <i>This has got to be the biggest circle jerk that I have ever read. Let's put a few items in the limelight. >>
Too bad so many here never read Law for Dummies
<< <i>Ebay provides an outlet (venue...e.tc) for sellers to get their materials to buyers. >>
Correct
<< <i>Ebay DOES NOT CHARGE prior to the listing of the item or items in question till the person, company....checks off that they UNDERSTAND ebay listing policies. therefore, there is no committment from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding for the listing. >>
no committment [sic] from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding? That doesn't sound right...
<< <i>These companies were around prior to the existance of Ebay....does that make it right to sue for change in policies that affect trade??? >>
If actions of party A are the cause of economic loss to party B, the fact that party B has been around longer than party A is relevant how?
<< <i> NO, they can always take their business back to where they were prior >>
So just take your business back to the old days of typewriters and phone calls and print listings....
<< <i>remember, Ebay is the OUTLET and doesn't collect charges for an auction whether it sells or not IF THE CONSIGNOR DOESN'T AGREE TO THE LISTING AGREEMENT and checks off that little box. >>
Irrelevant. Terms that violate the law cannot be enforced. The title of my parents' house, bought in 1962, says if a negro (more than 1/32 colored blood) is ever allowed to live there, the house goes back to the previous owner with no compensation.
<< <i>The companies are not product sponsors, nor do they pay listing advancements (ie....ebay collects no monies held in prior escrow to listings) so they cannot sue regarding lost monies as the companies cannot list there items unless the agreement was acknowleged. >>
Irrelevant.
<< <i>If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies...Ebay would only be able to collect on completed listings, not ones that are current to the closure...so why do these companies think that they can get due monies??? (see argument regarding advance pay). >>
Irrelevant. No such argument is made in the lawsuit.
<< <i>Everyone has the right to sell items on ebay providing that they follow the guidelines set in the policies....get over it... >>
Policies banning certain classes of items are legal. Policies banning all but a few select companies are not legal.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
>>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit. >>
You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. You seem to be overdoing it. Remember the wise old Irish mantra, "if everyone says you're drunk, you better sit down" >>
Ever hear of "equal protection under the law"? Just because a majority might think the plaintiffs are scum and the lawsuit should be dismissed doesn't mean that the plaintiffs don't have the right to sue and seek a judgement based on the findings and the terms of the law.
If Accugrade was able to win a settlement that their business was harmed basically by WHAT PEOPLE SAID, it's sort of a no-brainer to figure out how THIS case will go since it involves formal policies made by a company, and ending of approximately 100,000 auctions in two months (numbers from my ebay rep)
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i> Ever hear of "equal protection under the law"? Just because a majority might think the plaintiffs are scum and the lawsuit should be dismissed doesn't mean that the plaintiffs don't have the right to sue and seek a judgement based on the findings and the terms of the law.
If Accugrade was able to win a settlement that their business was harmed basically by WHAT PEOPLE SAID, it's sort of a no-brainer to figure out how THIS case will go since it involves formal policies made by a company, and ending of approximately 100,000 auctions in two months (numbers from my ebay rep) >>
If eBay ended nearly 100,000 auctions in the past two months, it was probably the last thing they wanted to do because eBay only makes money when the sale is finial! It is a shame that the people putting up those 100,000 auctions tried to circumvent eBay’s policies or were just reading challenged. (Several of the auctions were ended because the seller forgot to include a photo of the reverse of the NGC or PCGS slab.)
The suit involving Accugrade, did it go to trial or was a portion of it dismissed when some of the Defendants settled to make it go away.
“Equal protection under the law”, nice phrase but what the heck does it have to do with eBay’s policy. What terms of what law(s) are being violated? Items can still be listed on eBay, just go by the written guidelines that way no more auctions will be ended and eBay can make some money for their shareholders. If someone doesn’t want to go by eBay’s policy, then that person should take their business else where. Where is the problem, or is it that eBay should let every Tom, Dick and Harry decide how their own company is run, wonder if that would work for Exxon – Mobil, IBM, Disney or GE too.
<< <i> If eBay ended nearly 100,000 auctions in the past two months, it was probably the last thing they wanted to do because eBay only makes money when the sale is finial! It is a shame that the people putting up those 100,000 auctions tried to circumvent eBay’s policies or were just reading challenged. (Several of the auctions were ended because the seller forgot to include a photo of the reverse of the NGC or PCGS slab.)
The suit involving Accugrade, did it go to trial or was a portion of it dismissed when some of the Defendants settled to make it go away.
“Equal protection under the law”, nice phrase but what the heck does it have to do with eBay’s policy. What terms of what law(s) are being violated? Items can still be listed on eBay, just go by the written guidelines that way no more auctions will be ended and eBay can make some money for their shareholders. If someone doesn’t want to go by eBay’s policy, then that person should take their business else where. Where is the problem, or is it that eBay should let every Tom, Dick and Harry decide how their own company is run, wonder if that would work for Exxon – Mobil, IBM, Disney or GE too. >>
Many here still don't get the point.
A grading service called PDQ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
A grading service called XYZ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
Company PDQ's slabs have much better market share and perceived quality, and indeed the higher prices they sell for seem to confirm this. Company XYZ's slabs are dismissed as "inferior, fraudulant, overgraded" by advocates of PDQ slabs, but the XYZ company has never been charged with fraud and buyers of XYZ slabs are generally satisfied with the quality of the coins for the price paid.
Now ebay comes along, which controls over 90% of the online auction market, and proclaims that company PDQ's slabs are acceptable. but company XYZ's are not. The name of company XYZ can not even be mentioned anywhere in the listing, and the coin in an XYZ slab has to be considered UNCERTIFED even though they are listed in the CERTIFED Coin Dealer Newsletter, the "bible" of the wholesale coin market.
Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commision charged one of companies with failing to provide "objective or consistent grading" and that the company "does not in all cases observe its 'strict anti-self interest policy'." That was the PDQ company.
THAT'S what is going to be presented to the judge and jury.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Reading such things is just enough to get one into trouble for thinking one knows more than one does - more than likely one is still a ... well ... you know.
Frank, I know you don't care but you do realize that your continued push for crap really sets you out as a dealer to avoid for good coins and ethics, right? I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good.
Anyone who thinks this sucker is going to trial is wrong in my opinion. Having a trial, and appeals, etc. would cost millions and could take a decade to litigate. The suit is being brought to get a settlement. I don't see eBay budging, so it's a loser. Again, my opinion only.
A grading service called PDQ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
A grading service called XYZ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
Company PDQ's slabs have much better market share and perceived quality, and indeed the higher prices they sell for seem to confirm this. Company XYZ's slabs are dismissed as "inferior, fraudulent, overgraded" by advocates of PDQ slabs, but the XYZ company has never been charged with fraud and buyers of XYZ slabs are generally satisfied with the quality of the coins for the price paid.
Now eBay comes along, which controls over 90% of the online auction market, and proclaims that company PDQ's slabs are acceptable. but company XYZ's are not. The name of company XYZ can not even be mentioned anywhere in the listing, and the coin in an XYZ slab has to be considered UNCERTIFIED even though they are listed in the CERTIFIED Coin Dealer Newsletter, the "bible" of the wholesale coin market.
Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commission charged one of companies with failing to provide "objective or consistent grading" and that the company "does not in all cases observe its 'strict anti-self interest policy'." That was the PDQ company.
THAT'S what is going to be presented to the judge and jury. >>
I repeat myself, lucky for the Plaintiffs the Jury will not be selected from forum members who have a financial interest.
<< <i>Anyone who thinks this sucker is going to trial is wrong in my opinion. Having a trial, and appeals, etc. would cost millions and could take a decade to litigate. The suit is being brought to get a settlement. I don't see eBay budging, so it's a loser. Again, my opinion only. >>
I could not agree more! The plantiffs are just looking for easy money hoping that eBay will cave in. I will still be surprised if the Judge doesn't give a summary judgment to the defendant, I'm not even sure if some of the plantiffs have "standing" in the complaint.
<< <i>Frank, I know you don't care but you do realize that your continued push for crap really sets you out as a dealer to avoid for good coins and ethics, right? I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good. >>
I am just telling you what a non-numismatist judge and jury are likely to rule, based on the law, where trade restrictions, however well intentioned to protect buyers, are almost always struck down.
If Superman could swoop down and throw all the crooked ebay sellers into a black hole, that would be great. Unfortunately we have to work within the legal system. When people think making rules and restrictions are the quick fix, one often ends up being sued by the "bad guys" and often losing.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Too bad so many here never read Law for Dummies
Reading such things is just enough to get one into trouble for thinking one knows more than one does - more than likely one is still a ... well ... you know. >>
I've never read it. I got my experience the hard way. Been sued a few times. Sued people a few times. Ran a coin shop for 10 years. Dealt with contracts between the Pentagon and a defense contractor. Past president of an ACLU chapter. That kind of stuff...
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Frank, I know you don't care but you do realize that your continued push for crap really sets you out as a dealer to avoid for good coins and ethics, right? I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good. >>
I am just telling you what a non-numismatist judge and jury are likely to rule, based on the law, where trade restrictions, however well intentioned to protect buyers, are almost always struck down.
If Superman could swoop down and throw all the crooked ebay sellers into a black hole, that would be great. Unfortunately we have to work within the legal system. When people think making rules and restrictions are the quick fix, one often ends up being sued by the "bad guys" and often losing. >>
Holy cr@p, Frank is telling us what a judge is "likely" to do! I've never had a REAL lawyer with big enough cojones to tell me what a judge was "likely" to do
<< <i>Holy cr@p, Frank is telling us what a judge is "likely" to do! I've never had a REAL lawyer with big enough cojones to tell me what a judge was "likely" to do >>
Real lawyers are on the news daily proclaiming how their clients are innocent and the jury will undoubtedly find them innocent.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Comments
<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
Post of the DECADE.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
Post of the DECADE. >>
It would be more conclusive if one actually saw that coin in that slab, not just some picture overlaid.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
<< <i> << After reading this thread and the complaint, I hope the Judge has the intestinal fortitude to give a summary judgment to the Defendants and award the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees. When Judges start doing this then it might end some of these stupid law suits. >>
So judges should make decisions without even having a trial? >>
What part of “nuisance” do you not understand? Judges make rulings all the time if a case as enough merits to even waste the time of a trial.
<< <i> << I noticed some posts in this thread that alludes to eBay being the same as Microsoft. Get real, eBay is no way the monopoly that Microsoft is. >>
Ebay has over a 95% share of the online auction market. Microsoft has viable competition from Apple, Linux, Sun. >>
Apples to oranges. The “Anti Trust” laws that Microsoft stubbed their toes on are in no way the same thing that is going on with eBay. If eBay was an “Anti Trust” case, then either the US Attorney’s Office or a State’s Attorney General’s Office would start the case if there were any merits to it.
<< <i> << Getting back to the Complaint that was filed, what standing does PCI, NNC or Accugrade have? I wasn’t aware that PCI, NNC or Accugrade sold any coins on eBay. If these three companies do sell on eBay, are they a “Third Party Grading” company or a “First Party Grading” company. >>
Any bottleneck or restriction in a chain of distribution affects everyone upstream and downstream. You think David Hall wouldn't sue ebay if they banned PCGS coins? >>
Whether I could sell a PCGS coin on eBay or not, is none of David Hall’s business period. David Hall may not like the fact that eBay will not let anyone list a coin graded by PCGS on their site but he would have no “standing” in the case unless he had a financial stake in the coin I was trying to sell. If PCGS had a financial interest in a PCGS graded coin that I was selling, then PCGS would not be an “independent third party” to the buy / sell relationship.
<< <i>Post of the DECADE. >>
It would be more conclusive if one actually saw that coin in that slab, not just some picture overlaid. >>
Ah yes, inadmissable.
Well, it was an effective post as hearsay goes.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I also think eBay should absoltuely NARU all parties and related parties to the suit until the case is adjudicated (in 2020). >>
I think that would be a huge legal mistake.
<< <i> << This message is being posted for SEGS Grading Service.
Just for the record (not that anyone on this board cares) SEGS Grading Service is not part of the suite filed...
No member at SEGS talked to or corresponded with the representing law firm, nothing was signed or authorized, nor was any money paid. >>
I'm hoping that we see more input from this poster (because we on this forum, many of us at least, DO care - or at least are mildly interested) >>
Yes for sure, I can't wait for his or her 7th post. Lot of creditability there. I doubt they made a true statement. >>
Is some one talking about creditability that hides their profile? Is this like the “pot calling the kettle black?” I fail to see what someone’s post count has to do with the truthfulness of their statement. Get a life!
<< <i>
<< <i>I also think eBay should absoltuely NARU all parties and related parties to the suit until the case is adjudicated (in 2020). >>
I think that would be a huge legal mistake. >>
A company simply can't say we don't want to do business with someone who is suing us?
<< <i>
<< <i>I also think eBay should absoltuely NARU all parties and related parties to the suit until the case is adjudicated (in 2020). >>
I think that would be a huge legal mistake. >>
Why? Because they may sue eBay?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>A company simply can't say we don't want to do business with someone who is suing us? >>
They can, but I think it just makes them look like a retaliatory, monopolistic bully, and that's probably not a good seed to plant in the minds of a jury since that's sure to be at least some of what the plaintiffs will try to establish. No need to help them make their case.
Remember this one? In some establishments, with negative implications, it still holds true to this very day ....
* "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". Unruly, disorderly customers immediately come to mind but it also implies being biased (and worse) it rears up imagery of the ugliness of Racism. (A point for consideration.)
* The Age old cop out that "Grading is subjective", in this situation, will work in favor of the Plaintiffs. Beware of double-edged swords.
Services referred to as "reputable" do themselves NO favors when customers refer to them as the Best on one hand yet complain of coins being under-graded on the other and that with each re-submission per crackout, any given coin will grade differently each time sent in for regrade Like it or not, again this favors the Plaintiffs. Inconsistency/ grades within grades, grading curves that change from submitter to submitter depending on any set of variables that are denied and dismissed as being untruths, once again favors the Plaintiffs.
We, experienced Numismatists see blatanly obvious, grossly overgraded coins that are nowhere close to some of the advertised grades in some of the "slabs" deemed unacceptable whereas many an innocent newcomer knows no difference. By the same token, we also recognize coins under-graded by the services deemed Approved.
Because of these facts, which are but a few of all there is, like it or not, the Courts basing their decision unbiasedly along these lines (IMHO/ right or wrong) undoubtedly will rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. Like it and the or not, this IS America and as such these co-called Services have the Right to make a living.
I've read this entire thread with an open mind and while I have my own beliefs and experience, as all of us do, it's hard to see a different outcome. The argument that Grading is subjective and little more than one's paid for Opinion IS the very argument that will find for the Plaintiffs. Whether I or you know better and totally disagree makes no difference.
In such case it will be incumbent upon potential buyers to educate themselves. My opinion in this case does not reflect what I believe in as being right or wrong.
<< <i>
<< <i>I for one think what ebay is doing is just wrong (not that I completely side with the TPGs shut out)...but for many other reasons than just what people have already mentioned. Perhaps I will delve into my reasons later...I just want to ask this for now.
Not necessarily my beef with all this, but just to play a little DA...
Would you be okay with ebay banning a clothing maker of good quality clothing (that is not traded publically) but uses different measurements for the S, M, L, XL, XXL etc. from using the S, M, L, XL, XXL etc. in the title?
morris >>
Does your clothing manufacturer charge radically different prices based on size? >>
Thats not the point...its not that they are not allowing the tpg to exist on ebay, it is that their coins and others raw coins are not allowed to put the numerical grade in the title...which you know has been around for many years prior to any TPG existing.
morris
** I would take a shack on the Rock over a castle in the sand !! **
Don't take life so seriously...nobody gets out alive.
ALL VALLEY COIN AND JEWELRY
28480 B OLD TOWN FRONT ST
TEMECULA, CA 92590
(951) 757-0334
www.allvalleycoinandjewelry.com
They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next!
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>
They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000
that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay.
<< <i> << They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000 that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay. >>
So people submit coins to grading companies for the sole purpose of selling on eBay? If a customer of SEGS decided for what ever reason to pull is order, that is not eBay’s problem nor should it be. Personally I see nothing wrong with SEGS slabs, the ones that I have bought have all crossed over to PCGS, grade for grade (wish I could say the same for ICG).
With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees.
<< <i>
<< <i>
They make a living by grading and slabbing coins, not selling on eBay.
Next! >>
Ask Larry Briggs about the dealer that picked up his 8 double row boxes of raw coins AND the check for about $25,000
that he had just sent to SEGS because he realized that the coins would be unmarketable on ebay. >>
Not unmarketable, just inconvenient. And I think that there was another thread that showed raw coins selling for more than (net) graded ones, anyway.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>
With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else. >>
Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year
to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees.
It's not a case of discrimination, it's restraint of trade. Suppose a company marketed a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Obviously that threatens the profits of the big oil companies. They can't directly put the
maker of the 100 mpg car out of business, but the oil companies could take a survey of gas stations (who also would lose money) and declare the car "unapproved." While they don't outright refuse to sell gasoline to the owners of the little cars, they institute "restrictions" to "protect" the public. Like owners of the efficient car can buy gas only between midnight at 6 am, that the buyer of gas won't know the price or the grade....
<< <i>It's just possible some good might come out of this. Maybe it will begin to define what a deceptive grade is, or is not. It might also define what a "third party grading service" really is and is not.
Several months ago I came across a listing for an 1887 Morgan in MS64. If I remember correctly it had about 3 or 4 hours to go and the bid was under $10 (I think - anyway it was very low). When I scrolled down to look at the photo this is what I saw:
At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >>
I like that coin a lot, regardless of what slab it's in or what grade is on the slab. That toning delicately clinging around the relief devices is absolutely original, and if a return privilege was offered, I'd probably pay $100 for it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
With all the other venues out there, I do not believe that eBay has a monopoly on buying / selling coins. If a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules then let them sell some where else. >>
Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year
to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers.
I never realized that “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” were protected by the “non discrimination” laws. What protective class or group do the “Grading Companies” or “Coin Dealers” fall under, Religious, Ethnic, Race, Sex, Sexual Orientation or Age? Now if eBay was to have a policy that “White Catholics” could not sell coins on their site, you might have a discrimination case.
Again, like I’ve said earlier, I hope the Judge gives a “Summary Judgment” to the Defendant and require the Plaintiffs to pay all legal fees.
It's not a case of discrimination, it's restraint of trade. Suppose a company marketed a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. Obviously that threatens the profits of the big oil companies. They can't directly put the
maker of the 100 mpg car out of business, but the oil companies could take a survey of gas stations (who also would lose money) and declare the car "unapproved." While they don't outright refuse to sell gasoline to the owners of the little cars, they institute "restrictions" to "protect" the public. Like owners of the efficient car can buy gas only between midnight at 6 am, that the buyer of gas won't know the price or the grade.... >>
I think thats a totally different situation.
e) Furnishing services or facilities for processing, handling, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.
and Sec 13a
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.
---
Charging the same rates to list "unapproved" slabs while not giving them the same visibility could certainly fall under these rules. So could making sellers of "approved" slabs pay extra for additional pictures
<< <i>Are coins a “commodity”? I thought the Clayton Antitrust Act applied only to commodities. >>
"Widgets" are almost commodities....
<< <i> Ebay's monopoly is in ONLINE AUCTIONS. While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year
to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers. >>
OK if you want to narrow it down to just internet sales of coins, there are still other avenues to sell then just eBay. To even say eBay has a monopoly on internet sales is a reach. Again, if a dealer doesn’t want to play by eBay’s rules, let them start their own web site. I buy several coins in the course of a year on the internet without always using eBay (most upgrades, at least eighty percent, are non eBay purchases).
<< <i>While there are obviously others ways to buy and sell coins, many part time dealers that sell online don't wish to open a coin store or travel 40 weekends a year to shows, or pay $1000 a week for ads in the trade papers. >>
I'm sure many don't. What's not clear is why it is eBay's obligation to provide a place for those people to sell their stuff.
Ever since eBay opened for business, their policies have been more or less continually modified and new ones added. It would be a stretch to conclude that none of those changes have presented difficulties for some sellers, and the current situation is no different.
If you don't like eBay's rules or think they're fair, don't do business there. Seems easy enough to figure out. Why don't those people who don't like how they're being treated just go back to what they were doing before eBay?
Let me tell you about frivolous.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>If you don't like eBay's rules or think they're fair, don't do business there. Seems easy enough to figure out. Why don't those people who don't like how they're being treated just go back to what they were doing before eBay? >>
Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage?
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
<< <i>At first I was pissed then I thought it was funny. I still wonder if this could be called an intentional attempt to defraud buyers. Maybe this lawsuit will answer or begin to answer the question. >> >>
<< <i> like that coin a lot, regardless of what slab it's in or what grade is on the slab. That toning delicately clinging around the relief devices is absolutely original, and if a return privilege was offered, I'd probably pay $100 for it. >>
I did not pay $100.00 but I did like like coin for $16.00 It was just a matter of looks for me,I did ignore the grade
the_northern_trading_company
ace@airadv.net
Ebay provides an outlet (venue...e.tc) for sellers to get their materials to buyers.
Ebay DOES NOT CHARGE prior to the listing of the item or items in question till the person, company....checks off that they UNDERSTAND ebay listing policies. therefore, there is no committment from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding for the listing.
These companies were around prior to the existance of Ebay....does that make it right to sue for change in policies that affect trade??? NO, they can always take their business back to where they were prior....aka...shows, rags.......remember, Ebay is the OUTLET and doesn't collect charges for an auction whether it sells or not IF THE CONSIGNOR DOESN'T AGREE TO THE LISTING AGREEMENT and checks off that little box.
The companies are not product sponsors, nor do they pay listing advancements (ie....ebay collects no monies held in prior escrow to listings) so they cannot sue regarding lost monies as the companies cannot list there items unless the agreement was acknowleged.
If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies...Ebay would only be able to collect on completed listings, not ones that are current to the closure...so why do these companies think that they can get due monies??? (see argument regarding advance pay).
Everyone has the right to sell items on ebay providing that they follow the guidelines set in the policies....get over it...
Hell, I don't need to exercise.....I get enough just pushing my luck.
<< <i>
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit.
<< <i>If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies... >>
So you're saying I can't sue Yahoo for shutting down their auction business and denying me the right to sell my stuff there, free of the eBay monopoly? Bummer.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit. >>
You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. You seem to be overdoing it. Remember the wise old Irish mantra, "if everyone says you're drunk, you better sit down"
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. >>
Not protesting, clarifying.
I simply think people who are acting as if the world actually *is* as they think it *should* be regarding a business' absolute right to choose how (and with whom) they do business are not only fooling themselves, but also displaying an offputting, dismissive attitude in this thread that acts as if anyone who doesn't see it as open-and-shut as they do is a whiner. There have been plenty of laws and court cases concerning those laws which place limits on that right, regardless of whether we agree with the legal conclusions. (As a libertarian I generally don't agree with these infringements on private businesses, but that doesn't stop them from happening.)
[Edit to add: And for what it's worth, I mostly *do* side with eBay on this one but I certainly don't think their case is as open-and-shut as some think it is, and I don't think every assertion being made in the suit can be summarily dismissed as frivolous.]
<< <i>This has got to be the biggest circle jerk that I have ever read. Let's put a few items in the limelight. >>
Too bad so many here never read Law for Dummies
<< <i>Ebay provides an outlet (venue...e.tc) for sellers to get their materials to buyers. >>
Correct
<< <i>Ebay DOES NOT CHARGE prior to the listing of the item or items in question till the person, company....checks off that they UNDERSTAND ebay listing policies. therefore, there is no committment from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding for the listing. >>
no committment [sic] from ebay to list a given item after accepting funding? That doesn't sound right...
<< <i>These companies were around prior to the existance of Ebay....does that make it right to sue for change in policies that affect trade??? >>
If actions of party A are the cause of economic loss to party B, the fact that party B has been around longer than party A is relevant how?
<< <i> NO, they can always take their business back to where they were prior >>
So just take your business back to the old days of typewriters and phone calls and print listings....
<< <i>remember, Ebay is the OUTLET and doesn't collect charges for an auction whether it sells or not IF THE CONSIGNOR DOESN'T AGREE TO THE LISTING AGREEMENT and checks off that little box. >>
Irrelevant. Terms that violate the law cannot be enforced. The title of my parents' house, bought in 1962, says if a negro (more than 1/32 colored blood) is ever allowed to live there, the house goes back to the previous owner with no compensation.
<< <i>The companies are not product sponsors, nor do they pay listing advancements (ie....ebay collects no monies held in prior escrow to listings) so they cannot sue regarding lost monies as the companies cannot list there items unless the agreement was acknowleged. >>
Irrelevant.
<< <i>If ebay went bankrupt and closed it's doors today, nobody can sue them for future lost monies...Ebay would only be able to collect on completed listings, not ones that are current to the closure...so why do these companies think that they can get due monies??? (see argument regarding advance pay). >>
Irrelevant. No such argument is made in the lawsuit.
<< <i>Everyone has the right to sell items on ebay providing that they follow the guidelines set in the policies....get over it... >>
Policies banning certain classes of items are legal. Policies banning all but a few select companies are not legal.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Because the genie is out of the bottle and doing so would be a huge competitive disadvantage? >>
Hey, I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am trying to consider potentially winning legal arguments without dismissing it on its face as 100% without merit. >>
You keep protesting the reactions to your posts, but you might consider the reactions you're generating and think about whether your attempts to be devil's advocate and/or seem extra bright by arguing both sides have gone overboard, and are hurting your credibility. You seem to be overdoing it. Remember the wise old Irish mantra, "if everyone says you're drunk, you better sit down"
Ever hear of "equal protection under the law"? Just because a majority might think the plaintiffs are scum and the lawsuit should be dismissed doesn't mean that the plaintiffs don't have the right to sue and seek a judgement based on the findings and the terms of the law.
If Accugrade was able to win a settlement that their business was harmed basically by WHAT PEOPLE SAID, it's sort of a no-brainer to figure out how THIS case will go since it involves formal policies made by a company, and ending of approximately 100,000 auctions in two months (numbers from my ebay rep)
<< <i>
<< <i><< Ziggy,
Did you notice that you're in exhibit B? >>
Exhibit B? >>
Of the lawsuit.
Russ, NCNE >>
I see a few from here...
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i> Ever hear of "equal protection under the law"? Just because a majority might think the plaintiffs are scum and the lawsuit should be dismissed doesn't mean that the plaintiffs don't have the right to sue and seek a judgement based on the findings and the terms of the law.
If Accugrade was able to win a settlement that their business was harmed basically by WHAT PEOPLE SAID, it's sort of a no-brainer to figure out how THIS case will go since it involves formal policies made by a company, and ending of approximately 100,000 auctions in two months (numbers from my ebay rep) >>
If eBay ended nearly 100,000 auctions in the past two months, it was probably the last thing they wanted to do because eBay only makes money when the sale is finial! It is a shame that the people putting up those 100,000 auctions tried to circumvent eBay’s policies or were just reading challenged. (Several of the auctions were ended because the seller forgot to include a photo of the reverse of the NGC or PCGS slab.)
The suit involving Accugrade, did it go to trial or was a portion of it dismissed when some of the Defendants settled to make it go away.
“Equal protection under the law”, nice phrase but what the heck does it have to do with eBay’s policy. What terms of what law(s) are being violated? Items can still be listed on eBay, just go by the written guidelines that way no more auctions will be ended and eBay can make some money for their shareholders. If someone doesn’t want to go by eBay’s policy, then that person should take their business else where. Where is the problem, or is it that eBay should let every Tom, Dick and Harry decide how their own company is run, wonder if that would work for Exxon – Mobil, IBM, Disney or GE too.
<< <i>
If eBay ended nearly 100,000 auctions in the past two months, it was probably the last thing they wanted to do because eBay only makes money when the sale is finial! It is a shame that the people putting up those 100,000 auctions tried to circumvent eBay’s policies or were just reading challenged. (Several of the auctions were ended because the seller forgot to include a photo of the reverse of the NGC or PCGS slab.)
The suit involving Accugrade, did it go to trial or was a portion of it dismissed when some of the Defendants settled to make it go away.
“Equal protection under the law”, nice phrase but what the heck does it have to do with eBay’s policy. What terms of what law(s) are being violated? Items can still be listed on eBay, just go by the written guidelines that way no more auctions will be ended and eBay can make some money for their shareholders. If someone doesn’t want to go by eBay’s policy, then that person should take their business else where. Where is the problem, or is it that eBay should let every Tom, Dick and Harry decide how their own company is run, wonder if that would work for Exxon – Mobil, IBM, Disney or GE too.
Many here still don't get the point.
A grading service called PDQ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal
standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back
mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation
should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some
percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
A grading service called XYZ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal
standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back
mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation
should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some
percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
Company PDQ's slabs have much better market share and perceived quality, and indeed the higher prices they sell for seem to
confirm this. Company XYZ's slabs are dismissed as "inferior, fraudulant, overgraded" by advocates of PDQ slabs, but the XYZ company
has never been charged with fraud and buyers of XYZ slabs are generally satisfied with the quality of the coins for the price paid.
Now ebay comes along, which controls over 90% of the online auction market, and proclaims that company PDQ's slabs are acceptable.
but company XYZ's are not. The name of company XYZ can not even be mentioned anywhere in the listing, and the coin in an XYZ
slab has to be considered UNCERTIFED even though they are listed in the CERTIFED Coin Dealer Newsletter, the "bible" of the wholesale
coin market.
Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commision charged one of companies with failing to provide "objective or consistent grading" and that
the company "does not in all cases observe its 'strict anti-self interest policy'." That was the PDQ company.
THAT'S what is going to be presented to the judge and jury.
Reading such things is just enough to get one into trouble for thinking one knows more than one does - more than likely one is still a ... well ... you know.
I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good.
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
Free Trial
<< <i>
Many here still don't get the point.
A grading service called PDQ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal
standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back
mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation
should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some
percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
A grading service called XYZ, for a fee, examines a coin, places it in a sealed plastic holder, assigns a grade based on their own internal
standards, guarantees that it was graded properly according to their own standards, has a vague guarantee to buy back
mistakes (but they alone determine whether they actually made a mistake and to determine how much the compensation
should be), has no insurance to cover losses from such guarantee, and such slabs are listed on the Greysheet as selling at some
percentage under 100% of that of properly graded raw coins.
Company PDQ's slabs have much better market share and perceived quality, and indeed the higher prices they sell for seem to
confirm this. Company XYZ's slabs are dismissed as "inferior, fraudulent, overgraded" by advocates of PDQ slabs, but the XYZ company
has never been charged with fraud and buyers of XYZ slabs are generally satisfied with the quality of the coins for the price paid.
Now eBay comes along, which controls over 90% of the online auction market, and proclaims that company PDQ's slabs are acceptable.
but company XYZ's are not. The name of company XYZ can not even be mentioned anywhere in the listing, and the coin in an XYZ
slab has to be considered UNCERTIFIED even though they are listed in the CERTIFIED Coin Dealer Newsletter, the "bible" of the wholesale
coin market.
Interestingly, the Federal Trade Commission charged one of companies with failing to provide "objective or consistent grading" and that
the company "does not in all cases observe its 'strict anti-self interest policy'." That was the PDQ company.
THAT'S what is going to be presented to the judge and jury. >>
I repeat myself, lucky for the Plaintiffs the Jury will not be selected from forum members who have a financial interest.
Chance favors the prepared mind.
<< <i>Anyone who thinks this sucker is going to trial is wrong in my opinion. Having a trial, and appeals, etc. would cost millions and could take a decade to litigate. The suit is being brought to get a settlement. I don't see eBay budging, so it's a loser. Again, my opinion only. >>
I could not agree more!
<< <i>Frank, I know you don't care but you do realize that your continued push for crap really sets you out as a dealer to avoid for good coins and ethics, right?
I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good. >>
I am just telling you what a non-numismatist judge and jury are likely to rule, based on the law, where trade restrictions, however well intentioned to protect buyers, are almost always struck down.
If Superman could swoop down and throw all the crooked ebay sellers into a black hole, that would be great. Unfortunately we have to work within the legal system. When people think making rules and restrictions are the quick fix, one often ends up being sued by the "bad guys" and often losing.
<< <i>Too bad so many here never read Law for Dummies
Reading such things is just enough to get one into trouble for thinking one knows more than one does - more than likely one is still a ... well ... you know.
I've never read it. I got my experience the hard way. Been sued a few times. Sued people a few times. Ran a coin shop for 10 years. Dealt with contracts between the Pentagon and a defense contractor. Past president of an ACLU chapter. That kind of stuff...
<< <i>
<< <i>Frank, I know you don't care but you do realize that your continued push for crap really sets you out as a dealer to avoid for good coins and ethics, right?
I know that I have ZERO desire to deal with you on coins seeing how you push for items that are really not good. >>
I am just telling you what a non-numismatist judge and jury are likely to rule, based on the law, where trade restrictions, however well intentioned to protect buyers, are almost always struck down.
If Superman could swoop down and throw all the crooked ebay sellers into a black hole, that would be great. Unfortunately we have to work within the legal system. When people think making rules and restrictions are the quick fix, one often ends up being sued by the "bad guys" and often losing. >>
Holy cr@p, Frank is telling us what a judge is "likely" to do! I've never had a REAL lawyer with big enough cojones to tell me what a judge was "likely" to do
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Holy cr@p, Frank is telling us what a judge is "likely" to do! I've never had a REAL lawyer with big enough cojones to tell me what a judge was "likely" to do
Real lawyers are on the news daily proclaiming how their clients are innocent
and the jury will undoubtedly find them innocent.
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
-Paul