Morally wrong? It can be argued, all sellers should abide by the rules of the venue. The rules of the venue are not always 'right' in the eyes of those using it. That might be the case, but it doesn't make the deceitful and predatory conduct of sellers justifiable or even legal .....it just means it hasn't been tested under the law yet.....and many have not been held accountable.....yet !!! Shill bidding is against Ebay rules, and I think you'll find that they've done their homework, and already know that the law would support a consumer in any such scenario. Under our laws it appears to be defined as Fraud......i.e.
profit by deception. The trick is proving it, but at the very least, I believe it totally voids Ebay's contract of sale anyway, under Consumer protection LAWS.
This example is not on shill bidding....but it does deal with sellers thinking they can deliberately break the
rules with no ramifications........... in one landmark case recently, the law DID support and uphold Ebay's contract of sale (which is at the centre of all transactions on Ebay) when a Seller decided they hadn't achieved the best price for their listing and reneged on the sale.
Facts: The defendant listed a World War 2 plane on eBay for 10 days with a notation of a minimum bid of $150,000. The plaintiff made a bid of $150,000 and both the plaintiff and the defendant received notification from eBay that the plaintiff had won the auction for the plane. However, the defendant refused to sell the plane to the plaintiff and argued there was no binding contract.
The central argument made by the defendant was that the only contracts in existence were between eBay and the plaintiff and eBay and the defendant, those contracts never crossed over into an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant was not disputing that the terms of eBay were not binding, but rather that the consequences of his breach were only that eBay could remove him as a registered user.
Decision: The court held that a binding contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that it should be enforced. The court found that usual contractual principles apply to eBay and when people register with eBay they agree to accept its terms and conditions, including requiring parties to complete transactions where the terms of the auction are satisfied. The court pointed out that both the defendant and plaintiff had accepted, by clicking on an “accept” button, the terms and conditions of eBay. Thus, the court has confirmed the legally binding nature of click-wrap contracts.Unbeknown to Mr Smythe, Dr Thomas had already agreed to sell the plane to a Queensland buyer for almost $250,000.
news article with further details:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20508505-421,00.htmlThis might not be shill bidding, but it aptly illustrates the type of seller who happily breaches the rules, and COS thinking that all it will lead to is Ebay sanction as a member...until someone exercises their rights under the law that is..... It also highlights that Ebay's COS is the baseline for all disputes between buyer and seller, and all determinations of law will stem from the User agreement and COS between parties.
Shill bidding is a different issue, because it involves deception for profit....and hence crosses the line to petty fraud. It's dealt with under WA's Auction Sales Act specifically, but in other States, its ambiguous and difficult to articulate under consumer protection laws.
So where does a buyer stand when they suspect they've been deceived into bidding or paying much more than they might have, due to shill bidding on the part of the seller?...Do you think they have no rights Bazza?......I certainly don't...they are being defrauded first and foremost via deception...e.g. if a buyer knew they were bidding against the seller or a proxy of the seller, they probably wouldn't bother bidding...so as Brumby says, they are being duped into thinking the auction is legitimate when it isn't.
On that basis, the contract of sale (the baseline for all legal determinations resulting from disputed Ebay transactions), is Null and VOID from the outset of the auction !!! When a seller engages in shill bidding, they breach ebay's UA, and in so doing, they instantly void any legally binding COS over the buyer.
In this scenario, the buyer would not be expected to part with cash under Consumer Protection laws and has the right to refuse to complete the Sale. If Ebay impose an NPB sanction on the buyer, the buyer has the right to have it overturned and the matter investigated by Fair Trading or Consumer Affairs if necessary. Its' nothing short of extortionate if a buyer is being threatened into paying a dodgy seller, or receiving an NPB strike against their account. That's why Ebay have an appeals process for NPB strikes...they never do anything they're not legally obliged to do.
As Phil has demonstrated though....Ebay ensure that the evidence of shill bidding is circumstantial only...but that's enough to void a contract of sale in any consumer rights arena..... So I wouldn't kid yourself Bazza, in that scenario, it would be the ebay seller they'd be investigating and I'm certain an FT tribunal would find against the seller where shill bidding or any other form of deception is suspected.
Bazza, bottom line....we have consumer protection laws against dodgy traders, not trader protection laws against dodgy consumers....so who do you think has the law on their side when it comes to profit by deception? Buyer or Seller? Just try lodging a Fair Trade complaint against a buyer who has refused to pay and try to argue for payment....lmao...good luck with that...they'd tell you you're dreamin !! But if you issue a strike on that buyer and they lodge a complaint to FT about you for unconscionable conduct....well, I think you'll find that might be another story...lol