Why is the “eBafia Don” destroying eBay?

[Philip.Cohen]

Smee,

I accept that you have probably been an eBay user much longer than I and therefore your powers of deduction regarding all matters eBay will be much greater than mine, but would you mind telling me how you know that the person who was supposedly the winning bidder has since paid?

It’s now only 36 hours since the auction ended and I doubt that the “winner” would have already left feedback for an item that he could not possibly have yet received. So I presume you must have gone to the trouble of contacting the seller and asking him about the matter. Smee, that shows great investigative skills. And obviously, you accept what he says as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? And did you ask him why he was then trying to enter into a contract of sale with me for the item when he had clearly not given the other buyer (if indeed the other buyer is genuine) sufficient time to pay for it (only 20 hours). Maybe he had multiple copies of the book? Did he explain that?

But, once again, you miss what I thought was the more material points of my post, that eBay has effectively hidden the “notice” that a listing is such a “private listing” (such status does not become obvious on the Bid History page until a bid has been placed), and that why would a seller of such low value stuff choose “private listing” in the first place.

No doubt you will keep watch on this seller’s feedback profile for confirmation of that “sale”, and if and when the buyer does leave feedback I am absolutely sure that you will let us all know.

Then there is the matter of “private listings” per se. The mechanisms of eBay, for me, are all about appearances; that other than the most naïve seller could choose to list via private listings other than for the purpose of hiding their own bidding on their items, frankly, defies belief. Can I make it any simpler: sellers who use the private listing device are, more likely than not, shill bidders.

On the matter of “the question”, I would simply ask, once again, what possible purpose could an answer, one way or the other, serve?

Which brings us back to your earlier further reference to “beckertime.” For your benefit an update (although I have no doubt that you too have been keeping count, to make sure that I don’t falsify the figures). Of the 30 “Best Offer” sales recorded between 13 October and 25 October inclusive, as of 12 November, eight have so far had feedback left for them. How about you do your bit too and let us know when any new “Best Offer” feedback is left?

Smee, I don’t need to falsify anything to substantiate my conclusions about eBay, eBay supplies enough circumstantial evidence to have themselves well and truly convicted in the court of public opinion (ie, on the balance of probability), or have you not noticed that buyers are literally staying away in droves and eBay is continuing its slow slide into the abyss.

[Bazza]

Cupie. So glad to hear there was no offense intended.....none taken mate. What a strange performance.

Anyway, a vendor bid is no different to a reserve price. A vendor bid pushes the price of an item to a point that the seller is willing to part with the item. Exactly the same as a reserve.

This is about the difference between the two methods, not about the legalities. We all know it's not acceptable according to ebay.

As I said, I don't have a problem with it. Last I heard, I'm allowed to hold that opinion.

[cueperkins]

And breaching Ebay's UA?????

BTW....What a strange performance.  Meaning?

[Philip.Cohen]

There is a great material difference between the setting of a reserve price and shill bidding and that difference is that a shill bid falsely suggests that there is interest in the item when there is in fact not any interest; a reserve price does no such thing, and indeed at a traditional auction you may not even be aware that there is a reserve price in effect.

Simply put, undisclosed vendor bidding corrupts the auction process in favour of the seller and is rightly considered to be fraud; a reserve price simply says that the vendor will not sell for less. The same applies to a vendor bid that is disclosed as such when it is made; there is no false representation involved and therefore no fraud; the vendor is simply saying that he will not sell for less.

I’ll say it again, the English auction system is intended as a mechanism to fairly find the market value of an item on the day; it was never intended to be a mechanism to be manipulated by unscrupulous vendors to get the price that they could probably not otherwise get. Anyone who thinks that shill bidding on auctions is a legitimate tool of commerce is a most unscrupulous person and anyone who shill bids is a criminal.

[gr8-expectations]

ur entitled to an opinion in here bazza, even bin laden has em lol

[gr8-expectations]

however..... controversial opinions on this board are $29,995 per WEEK





jest hope you can afford ut, if ur a coinee it shuldnt be a prob., all coinees are loaded...

[gr8-expectations]

stir up da natives and ya pay big time....

[*Brum6y*]

Can I make it any simpler: sellers who use the private listing device are, more likely than not, shill bidders.

Philip, while I do not disagree that private listings can be used as a tool to help disguise shill bidding, I cannot see how you can use the phrase "more likely than not".

Unless you have numbers to back this up, this is pure speculation on your part - and can only be an opinion.  To make this qualification is irresponsible.  Further, this only highlights your preoccupation with shill bidding, casts shadows over your objectivity and damages your credibility.

I, for one, do not want to see your concerted efforts on shill bidding getting buried under a mountain of ridicule, but it is getting a bit like 'reds under the bed'.  Please be careful.


I will offer these as a couple of 'off the cuff' possibilities for private auctions:

1. The seller is reclusive and is against being open on eBay.  They may even be 'pushing the envelope' to even BE selling on eBay. This could also include sellers with some other 'behavioural issues' who would act similarly. (I'm sure Cupie could expand here.)
2. The seller is trading in products that may be embarrassing or personal (like incontinence pads or lingerie - hey, this is off the cuff!)
3. The seller is trading in products of high desirability to avoid successful buyers being hounded by others wishing to buy it off them.
4. The seller is appealing to those buyers who want to keep their purchases 'under wraps' (for whatever reason).
5. The seller is appealing to those buyers who are anxious about their privacy.
6. The seller thought it might be a good idea to get bids ('informed' decision)
7. The seller selected 'private listing' because it seemed like a good idea (not knowing it's function)
8. Turboblister glitch
9. EBay glitch
10. Seller 'oops'

OK - some of those are a bit of a reach, but ALL of them are not outside the realms of possibility, as is the possibility of shielding shill bidding.

So, I am quite happy to accept that private listings can be used to shield shill bidding, but not "more likely than not" - unless you have some tangible means to demonstrate this claim.

[gr8-expectations]

a few small semantic changes phil and we have a peace accord with brumbs.....




bazza may take a while longer........

[gr8-expectations]

i believe i have ruined enuf threds for the evening i shall now retire with a cuppa ....

dont miss me too much lol

[*Brum6y*]

a few small semantic changes phil and we have a peace accord with brumbs.....

... in a nutshell.

[Philip.Cohen]

Hi Brumby,

1. You are right, private auctions were never intended as hides for “reclusive” sellers; sellers are not allowed to be “reclusive”; they cannot even have private feedback; after all there has to be some transparency in this selling process. Private listings were supposedly to protect buyers, but the choice is made by the seller!

2. Embarrassing stuff. That was one of the silly reasons put up for such private listings but the choice is still made by the seller not the buyer.

3. Nonsense.

4. Buyers’ IDs are totally anonymous; there is no need now for such “privacy” even if it could be said there was such need previously.

5. Buyers now have complete privacy without “private listings”.

6. Nonsense. More likely to put people off bidding.

7. Maybe, mistakes can be made but not habitually.

OK, my problem is that I have watched some sellers dabble in “private listing”, “kd_art” in the spreadsheet is a classic example; he has wavered between blatantly shill bidding on his own auctions, listing in the US with a reserve, and is now using private listings to hide his shill bidding and/or to give the impression that his stuff is selling. Far too many sellers are now resorting to private listings.

My conclusion therefore is that—on the balance of probability—the seller who uses private listings is going to shill bid. For me it is that simple. “Private listings” is eBay’s classic shill bidders’ tool. Actually, I don’t doubt that the very great majority of those who know what they are doing and who use private listings, use them to hide shill bidding.

Do you know why the UK site is sinking into the abyss at a faster rate than the rest of the eBay world is sinking into the abyss? Because they still have that devious, absolutely anonymous, form of bidder masking (“Bidder x”) and buyers don’t like it. Unfortunately, the cretins making the decisions at eBay think that all their consumers are morons and wouldn’t know the difference …

If you really think that private listings are so innocuous (or even actually serve any useful purpose), how would you feel about eBay Australia re-introducing the same “Bidder x” form of bidding alias? That might make Bazza [removed] happy, but there would ultimately be even fewer buyers.

Moderated by mod/admin team

[Bazza]

BTW....What a strange performance.  Meaning?

An over-the-top reaction Cupie. It's a discussion forum isn't it........with rules. You know, rules that members are supposed to adhere to.

Seems like anything goes here hey?

That might make Bazza [removed] happy

And people complain about eBay moderation.

[*Yibida*]

BTW....What a strange performance.  Meaning?

An over-the-top reaction Cupie. It's a discussion forum isn't it........with rules. You know, rules that members are supposed to adhere to.

Seems like anything goes here hey?

That might make Bazza [removed] happy

And people complain about eBay moderation.

You haven't been moderated since being here Bazza ?... why do you say that ?.....

[Bazza]

Exactly right Yibida.

You see nothing wrong with the comment?

[*Yibida*]

Exactly right Yibida.

You see nothing wrong with the comment?

Oh I see Bazza... I feel the moderation is minimal to avoid personal dig's as per the user agreement of this site, if it were ebay the whole string would have been removed...  the minimal moderation is hardly worth mentioning as the thread and subject is 99.9% intact..... :green:  

[*Brum6y*]

Philip.

As noted, my suggestions were 'off the cuff' - but I would only have to cite ONE example of each in all of eBaydom for their inclusion to be valid.  I think the odds are pretty much in my favour.

My point was that you said "more likely than not" - without any grounds.  It makes you look like you have lost your objectivity.

From 'reds under the beds' to 'shillers under the pillows'  (pronounced 'shillars under the pillars', for best effect)

[*Brum6y*]

Anyway, a vendor bid is no different to a reserve price. A vendor bid pushes the price of an item to a point that the seller is willing to part with the item. Exactly the same as a reserve.

Bazza - I acknowledge your right to hold your opinion, but I cannot agree with it.

The only argument I can see is the net effect at the end of an auction FROM THE SELLER'S PERSPECTIVE will be much the same.  If you are looking at it from that direction only, I can understand your stance - but it is the BUYER who is disadvantaged.

By taking your stance, you project a very strong picture where you are not concerned about buyers and are supportive of sellers :

... drive the price to a point the seller is willing to accept.

Sorry.  That is just so wrong.  Auctions are about how much the buyer is willing to pay

As it has been said, when an item is auctioned, the purpose is for the market to set a value on the lot being put up.  If the seller (or their representative) enters the bidding, they are acting fraudulently.  Their participation in the bidding has absolutely NO bearing on the perceived value from the market's perspective - it is only a representation of the seller's desire.

No-one is going to argue that shill-bidding is unlawful.

Agreed

Morally wrong...that's debatable.

Not for me.  With many things in this world that aren't unlawful but are morally wrong, it would seem to me that in raising the bar, legislatively, there is a corresponding increase in what is considered morally wrong.  You say shill bidding is unlawful, so how can it be anything other than morally wrong?  Mind you, that is an objective view on morality.

Thought, if you have a subjective view, then I can't argue against that other than by disagreeing with the concept of someone deciding for themselves what is right or wrong.  In my opinion, that is self-serving and anti-social.

Bringing the laws of the land into the arguement doesn't wash with me.

So you are advocating illegal conduct...?  Can I take your car without your permission, then?

I live in the real world where profit and loss mean survival,

I live there too.  I also play the game by the rules.  I seem to survive.  I know one or two others that seem to do the same or a lot better than me.  I don't have a flash car or a 60" flat panel TV, but I can still get from A to B and watch a DVD.

where shill bidding is used as a competitive edge

Now we are getting into the 'justification stakes'. The competitive edge ...! Like steroids for an athlete?  Bribing a politician?  Kickbacks to contract selectors?  Whatever happend to quality merchandise, extensive range, superlative service and aggressive pricing.  They are some of the factors I support for that 'competitive edge' - and they aren't unlawful (oops, sorry).

and where reserves don't exist within the largest on-line marketplace in Australia (with few exceptions).

Now THIS I will agree on.  EBay have changed the playing field and I am no fan of removing options, such as this.

It is, unfortunately, the result of eBay being a business in its own right - and they have stated their reasoning.  The truth is that sellers are forced to choose between starting auction items at their minimum sale price - which gives eBay higher listing fees - or starting them at a lower amount (to reduce listing fees) and take the risk that bidding will reach an acceptable level - where eBay will get a FVF if there are any bids.

I have said this before - when the rules change, the players will change the way they play the game - or simply not play.  (It was always inferred in that statement that any game playing would be within the rules.)  I would have expected that anyone who was not able to play within the rules would have moved to somewhere where they could.

We can talk all we like about the law,

... and it still remains the law: relevant and definitive.

but it's real and it happens.

The same can be said for fraud, embezzlement, murder, robbery, assault, rape, drink driving, speeding, parking in a clearway, streaking, shill bidding, product misrepresentation, mailing plutonium, destruction of (someone else's) property, evading tax, drive an unregistered vehicle on a public thoroughfare, being a traitor, libel and slander as well as shill bidding.

They are unlawful too.

Ignoring the law for your own benefit and justifying it by claiming your own subjective morality permits whatever actions you deem reasonable, is just one concept in which I cannot begin to find any validity.  To me, it is a rationalisation for a self-centred approach to life with a mix of greed, laziness and/or poor vocational selection.


But that is just my opinion...

[Bazza]

I feel the moderation is minimal to avoid personal dig's as per the user agreement of this site

I'm not a button pusher yibida. We'll see if the moderators want to uphold the UA of the site.




Brumby. I take on board what you have written. My views are based on the outcome of an auction, shilled or reserved.

BTW....I'm not a seller. I simply understand why shilling occurs.

[Bazza]

Thankyou to the mods.

[Roo]

I feel the moderation is minimal to avoid personal dig's as per the user agreement of this site

I'm not a button pusher yibida. We'll see if the moderators want to uphold the UA of the site.




Brumby. I take on board what you have written. My views are based on the outcome of an auction, shilled or reserved.

BTW....I'm not a seller. I simply understand why shilling occurs.

Bazza..the moderation here is a breath of fresh air compared to other places.

This site welcomes opposing views, written in an informative and subjective mode.

It takes a lot to get anything even close to an 'Ebay slap' here....because the posters are inteligent and far removed from the usual Ebay slap theory and mind set.

You have actually brought forth a new view to this subject that has been debated quite vigouresly...and that is very much appreciated and encouraged.

[*Brum6y*]

Bazza, I'm glad you understand where I was coming from.  Your comments did come across as seller centred, but I do appreciate the position you presented.

[Philip.Cohen]

We all understand why shill bidding occurs, Bazza; but you seem to be prepared to be accepting of the concept that such criminal activity is OK simply because you “understand” why it occurs; most of the rest of us have a sense of ethics that tells us that the seller taking such an unfair advantage is not appropriate—and the law in most civilized countries also prescribes it as being unfair, and therefore unlawful.

Shill bidding is no less fraud than is any other false representation, eg, the deliberate mis-describing of the goods to gain an advantage for the seller, would be. And even if there was no statute law in place, such activity, if it could be proved on the balance of probability, would undoubtedly be found at common law to be the basis for voiding any contract of sale.

The fact that unscrupulous auctioneers have forever taken advantage of the ambiguity in the Sale of Goods Act in the UK and NSW (about the making of vendor bids) to make undisclosed vendor bids for the purpose of milking naive buyers at auction sales does not make it OK.

If you want a definite price for your goods then you should set a fixed price, like traditional retailers do. If you can’t get the price you want for your goods at auction without bidding on them yourself then your goods are obviously not worth what the seller wants and such sellers should best get out of the retailing business.

[gr8-expectations]

This is all an interesting subject, does anyone here know the actual legislation or state and federal laws on "off the wall" bidding or vendor bids as they apply say to real estate auctions? Where things get really interesting in regards to principles/laws is say on real estate or cars say sold at auction through a place like Pickles Auctions for example where finance companies and people wanting to sell their vehicles send them there to finalise the transaction with lessees who cant afford to pay, by law I believe finance companies HAVE to dispose of them this way so it can be said the vehicle or leased item has been sold for the best possible market price (possibly they can also dispose of them through public tender as well? 

Anyway say with real estate there is a big ticket item, not tens of $ or even hundreds of $ but many thousands, and also at art and antique auctions, are "off the wall" as I believe they are/were called vendor mates or bidders allowed? They say to "get things started" but where does it stop and how much does it inflate the final price paid for the items albeit a house, a piece of valuable art or antique or car?

I remember hearing years back that a vendor bid was NOT illegal? But thats just hearsay what is really the case legally?

I dont think most people attending a real estate auction would be that happy to not be able to know the identity of the "mystery" bidder(s) in dark glasses cranking the price upwards or providing warm up bids that are not real. It happens many times in auction rooms that no bidder wants to be the first, once bidding starts they are in but dont want to lead, is this wrong too?

Kind of takes on another dimension when you get up into peoples lives like that wherein should they win they are often paying for a lifetime via a mortgage for an item that only reached a price through "off the wall" or vendor bids.

Unlike online auctions there is no way to do a fast ID check on the guy or girl in dark glasses standing in the corner lol, i.e. stop here, who is THAT person, its quite random really and perhaps more open to abuse, same with the high end art market, with recent news stories about fakes etc. you have to wonder, not all these people including real estate agents are trustworthy.

[*CountessA*]

Graeme Samuel, ACCC Chairman, in 2003 wrote:

"We are now in court over some of these matters and have investigations under way in
several States in relation to allegations of dummy bidding and misleading valuations.
The Commission considers all vendor bidding to be misleading unless fully disclosed
both at the start of the auction and at the time of the bid. An undisclosed vendor bid
has no more intention of purchasing a property than a tree or gnome.
In some jurisdictions, such disclosure is not yet mandatory, and in others, there are
limitations to a maximum of one vendor bid. The Commission is simply standing
firm on the need for open and transparent processes that are not likely to mislead.
For however much real estate professionals may like to believe otherwise, consumers
do not necessarily understand the terminology used at auctions or have the ability to
readily discern between truth and deceit. It is important that the Commission reminds
all real estate professionals that the provisions of the Trade Practices Act are
unchanged by any regulatory debate going on at State or Territory level.
The Commission has also made it very clear that vendors may be at risk of action
under the Act if they knowingly allow dummy bids or other deceptive practices to be
engaged in by vendors’ agents when offering their properties for sale.
We have recently seen a marked change in behaviour by real estate agents regarding
dummy bids. This is very pleasing and is a positive outcome for consumers.
The reaction from real estate agents and their associations across Australia has been
strong and continued Commission monitoring will ensure that changed behaviour is
not temporary.
Change in behaviour by industry has benefits for consumers and the industry itself
whose reputation can only be enhanced by fair and ethical behaviour."

Prior to 2003, it was not mandatory for auctioneers to reveal vendor bids at auction in Victoria. However, from 2003...

"The good news is that the dummy bidding laws may be the best in Australia. Auctioneers will be required to "announce all vendor bids". The Real Estate Institute of Victoria yesterday described this as "unfair". The institute wants "undisclosed" vendor bids to be allowed. However, it seems the government has realised that an "undisclosed vendor bid" and a "dummy bid" are the same.

Dummy bidding is an essential component of auctions. It is like a spark plug to an engine. After all, how do you have an auction with only one bidder? Agents need dummy bidders in order to fool both sellers and buyers into believing there are more bidders. Now that they will have announce their dummy bids, they don't like it.

Continuing with its blatant and shameless hypocrisy yesterday, the Institute President said, "Property sellers have rights too." Yes, they sure do; and the government is finally doing something meaningful to protect their rights. It is denying agents the right to give false quotes and the right to fool them with dummy bidding.

There is no better proof that these new laws are good for consumers than the Real Estate Institute's confession yesterday that it was "disappointed" the Government did not accept the Institute's "preferred option". The Government will not allow the agents who cheat consumers to set the laws.

Consumers can be thankful that agents who have been cheating them for years may soon find it harder to cheat. The proposed new laws are a huge improvement on the status quo."

This change to Victorian legislation was of pivotal importance:

Dummy bidding
One real estate practice that has achieved a great deal of media attention is that of “dummy bidding”
which refers to bidding at an auction by those who have no genuine intention to buy. The real estate
industry at large would distinguish this from vendor bidding whereby the vendor bids either on their
own behalf or though an auctioneer or agent up to but not including a preset reserve selling price.
Such bidding by an auctioneer on behalf of a vendor has been described colloquially as the “pulling of
bids”. Most in the industry would agree that dummy bidding at auctions is misleading and that it
should be specifically prohibited. However views regarding vendor bids are more equivocal. Many in
the industry would argue that vendor bidding creates momentum in auctions and that the vendor bid
equates to the vendor’s counter offer in a private treaty negotiation. As such vendors should not be
placed in a worse position in auction sales than they enjoy in private treaty sales negotiations.
However others recognise that many auctions especially in the recent buoyant market, may only
attract one genuine bidder and that the reserve is flexible and often adjusted during the course of an
auction. Prospective buyers may be effectively bidding against themselves and where a reserve is set
unrealistically high (ie over the agent’s estimated market value), the vendor may bid over an
estimated market value of the property (Reed et al 2002).
Most states have considered that while it can be accepted that the vendor bid has a valid role in
protecting the vendor’s right to negotiate the best deal possible on their property, to the extent that
any such undisclosed bid achieves this by misleading bidders, reform is warranted for consumer
protection. Thus as a minimum there should be a requirement for vendor bids to be disclosed and
recorded as vendor bids. The number of such permitted bids has varied but most jurisdictions have of
late sought the registration of all bidders, the recording of bids including vendor bids and the
recording of an agreed reserve price.
NSW has recently enacted legislation requiring all bidders to register and that auctioneers only take
bids from registered bidders who are identified by displaying a number assigned on registration. Bids
are to be recorded in a bidders record with reference to that identifying number. Vendors are
restricted to one bid only on their behalf provided the auction conditions notify that the seller or
auctioneer reserves the right to bid and the auctioneer identifies the bid as taken by or on behalf of
the vendor or auctioneer.6 In Queensland auctioneers are required to use their best endeavours to
register all bidders.7
Amendments have recently been passed to Victorian legislation specifically prohibiting the making and
accepting of dummy bids and undisclosed vendor bids. All vendor bids are to be made via the
auctioneer and the auctioneer will be required to declare the bid as a vendor bid by using the words
“vendor bid”. If a property is passed in and the highest bid was a vendor bid, agents will be precluded
from stating the amount of the highest bid without also stating that the bid was a vendor bid. 8
Property suctions in the ACT are also to be changed significantly by a recently introduced bill which
will prohibit dummy bidding and restrict the number of vendor bids to only one 9. It is also proposed
to introduce a requirement for bidders to register similar to the requirements introduced in NSW. If
the Bill is passed the regulations are expected to start in July 2004.
In SA it can be argued that dummy bidding by agents is prohibited already under the Fair Trading Act,
which provides that it is an offence to make a misleading representation in relation to the price
payable for land. However it has been determined that a more specific prohibition against dummy
bidding is required for certainty. Under new proposed legislation for 2004 it will be an offence for any
person to make or procure a dummy bid as well as for an auctioneer to knowingly take or procure a
dummy bid. These changes will require amendment to the Land Agents Act 1994 (for agents &
auctioneers) and the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1995 for members of public.
Bidders will be required to register and auctioneers will be required to identify all bids with reference
to the bidders registration number, which is to be clearly displayed. One bid only is to be permitted on
behalf of the vendor, which is to be clearly identified as a vendor bid. The agent/sales representative
is to be required to record the agreed reserve and document any changes to the reserve, in writing
prior to commencement of the auction. The agent/sales representative is to be required to make and
keep a record of all bids made at auction, and identify which bids were vendor bids. Agent are to be
required to retain the register of bidders, record of bids and documentation evidencing the reserve for
a reasonable period of time to facilitate the later scrutiny of the auction process.

[gr8-expectations]

thanks countess very interesting reading

[cueperkins]

BTW....What a strange performance.  Meaning?

An over-the-top reaction Cupie. It's a discussion forum isn't it........with rules. You know, rules that members are supposed to adhere to.

Seems like anything goes here hey?

That might make Bazza [removed] happy

And people complain about eBay moderation.

Yes it is a discussion forum Bazza,..... so what's your point?.....Also interesting that you have managed to single me out subjectively making inferences about forum rules and moderation in the same breath....interesting but fairly obvious

I notice you totally skim over the fact that a seller breaching Ebay's UA, also breaches any legally binding COS between parties....and the fact that you'd have buckley's trying to enforce a COS over a buyer in any legal or regulatory arena anyway.  The seller in my example is about to find out, that he's just bought more trouble than he bargained for...not OTT...just exercising my rights as a consumer...

GR8.....Real Estate laws are different in each State....ho hum...and yes, they would be the benchmark for any debate ....but it would take me half a day to research all that, and I'm really not interested to that extent.  The fact that legislation differs from State to State, you will find that in WA...The Auction Sales Act deals with Shill bidding as a definite no no...but in NSW, the Sale of Goods Act, is as ambiguous as hell.  The law is skewed from State to State, and that doesn't make it easy when you're dealing with a National Venue.

Thanks Countess,....the cases you've posted about will be interesting to watch, because they will set the stage, for all FT and C/Affairs legislation to be upgraded in line with the National precedent....Great work ACCC.  (Watch that show up on Twitter...lmao)  But...it still does not focus on Auction Sales generally as WA's legislation appears to do...and that's what we need to see happening.....ALL auction industries should be similarly regulated...but what's the bet Ebay will escape scrutiny....

[shyer]

Countess this throws up the question to me if an ebay auction is listed from victoria. I bid in Queensland for a friend in New Zealand. Item auctioned is being posted from Singapore . And ebay servers are in California while ebay bills seller from switzerland.

What country or state law applies?

[cueperkins]

Shyer, that's why ACCC is setting the precedent, because it's at the very least National....

In that scenario you presented, the laws of each State of Origin would apply to the Seller and/or Buyer....so for instance...let's say the seller is in Vic, and the buyer in NSW......the buyer can lodge a F/Trading complaint against the seller in both states.....although F/Trading would more than likely expect the buyer to lodge a complaint in NSW first (their state of origin)....they would then confer with their Vic counterparts (the sellers State of Origin) owing to the fact that the legislation will differ from State to State. 

For example...Victoria has had Unfair Consumer Contract laws since 2003, whereas the rest of Australia is still catching up....so...if the seller is in Victoria, he'd be in real strife because they probably have the best consumer protection laws in Australia.  In NSW by comparison, they'd probably get away with it...lol

If it were me, I'd lodge a complaint in the Sellers State of Origin because the buyer doesn't need to be present at any tribunal hearing, whereas the seller does.   If the seller is in WA for instance, their legislation will be much harsher on unconscionable auction sellers than say NSW will be, because WA has specific laws surrounding Auctions in particular.....very confusing I know.  That's why Consumer Protection legislation needs to be Federalised....to be able to address cross border e-commerce.

[gr8-expectations]

Countess this throws up the question to me if an ebay auction is listed from victoria. I bid in Queensland for a friend in New Zealand. Item auctioned is being posted from Singapore . And ebay servers are in California while ebay bills seller from switzerland.

What country or state law applies?

its obvious shyer .... in that case sharia law would apply and the vendor of the goods should wear a hajib

[gr8-expectations]

i have no faith in the accc or asic cupie, toothless tigers who make little or no change, sorry

[gr8-expectations]

too interested in attacking the little guy and not taking on the big end of town, we are talking MASSIVE effects and results in terms of what ebay do and the effect on their bottom line of the shady things they do re say preypal for example and they continue to get away with it and the accc say they have investigated and found it to be ok, i called accc many times during the debacle and that was their line

[gr8-expectations]

its a point IMNHSO TOTALLY lost on the accc, they cannot grasp the concept let alone deal with it

[cueperkins]

I don't accept that at all gr8....ACCC is only as good as the legislation they must work within....that legislation is seriously lacking, so if you want to call anyone a toothless tiger, then point the finger squarely at gutless pollies who allow big business to walk all over consumers and smaller traders....we had 12 years of that kind of free for all and look where that got us.....ACCC can only function within their current legislative framework...Last year new legislation was proposed to bolster those powers and give ACCC big TEETH, but the senate voted it down.....guess who?....Yep...Liberal senators representing their real electorates again....big business...!!!

[gr8-expectations]

i yam right and u r wrong.....

[gr8-expectations]

the accc should have framed up the breaches of the tpa for asic and passed it on properly with a recommendation to prosecute or investigate ebay to the bets of my knowledge they didnt do that and THAT was within their powers to do missing legislation or no missing legislation

[gr8-expectations]

i didnt know that was voted down, how sad was going to ask that




ps yur slip is showing and the back of your skirt is tucked in your pants

[gr8-expectations]

that legislation was much heralded and would have given the accc far more power granted, however based on their past performance whether they would have acted or not i am not so sure

[cueperkins]

Look gr8...just put on your  and admit that you're swallowing the media line.... ACCC doesn't write the legislation, they administer it...warts and all.....the law makers are the ones that are to blame for ACCC's limited powers...u know you're wrong.....go on....admit it....lol

 

And yes, it was voted down....and....I'm not wearing pants....lmao

[Bazza]

Yes it is a discussion forum Bazza,..... so what's your point?.....Also interesting that you have managed to single me out subjectively making inferences about forum rules and moderation in the same breath....interesting but fairly obvious

If I singled you out Cupie, it would be because of of the threatening tone of your remark. Re-read it. Does it sound threatening to you?

[gr8-expectations]

bazza dont go there she only resorts to the big girls panties all the time... u cant win





hint.... shes a poodle disguised as a doberman lol

[cueperkins]

Does it sound threatening to me?....not at all....you are arguing that there's nothing wrong (morally or legally) with shill bidding, and you said that you were not attempting to change anyone's view to the opposite.....I reassured you that you hadn't changed my view and that I STILL consider shill bidding to be profit via deception and therefore fraud...I stand by the fact that if you ripped me off in such a fashion, I'd report you or any other seller for doing it without even blinking....not a threat, a promise...not aimed at you in particular but any seller engaging in that kind of conduct.  Did you also miss the bit where I say 'No Offense Bazza'...lmao....convenient that eh?

but as you say Bazza...it's only a forum isn't it....lol...

[Bazza]

'she' ??? Sorry, I seriously thought Cupie was a bloke. My bad.

Cupie. I just couldn't see the need for the aggresive remark. Anyway, I know what you think and you know what I think and that what it's about I guess.

[gr8-expectations]

well she may be a he for all i know lol dont know many blokes who would make you wear big girls pants ....

[gr8-expectations]

except me perhaps lol

[*Yibida*]

Cupie's is a Woman .. ~ gr8... well...is in another league from what he / she tell's us..... 

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Poddy]

Dear oh Dear !!!

Bazza you sound very much like a sparing partner I had until recently, are you?

[Philip.Cohen]

Excellent quotes Countessa, particularly that of Samuels (although long ago the ACCC refused to correspond any further with me about shill bidding on eBay—they said it was a contractual matter! Apparently you may contract with eBay to be tolerant of shill bidding …), and the overriding statute that applies to professional sellers in Australia is the Federal Trade Practices Act, which overrides the states with respect to commercial transactions regardless of their statutes which, in any case, are mainly attempts to stop the cheats at auctions where very large sums of money are involves and this is mainly real estate auctions. The big art market auctions however carry on ripping off buyers right left and centre with undisclosed vendor bidding.

The Trade Practices Act clearly makes it unlawful for a trader to make "false representations" in just about any form for the purpose of making a gain (I've summarized the TPA elsewhere).

What else is there to debate about this matter? Only that eBay has all the digital records to do something to control such activity on eBay auctions, but chooses to do nothing. We simple peasants buying stuff on eBay should not be so blighted with such criminal activity and eBay should not be allowed to knowingly facilitate such criminal activity.

With traditional auctions the problem is always going to be about getting unscrupulous vendors/auctioneers to obey the law; regardless of the law it is always going to be “buyer be very careful” at any traditional auction.

PS Countessa, I keep getting notices of threads being split; but the “sand pit” stuff always seems to remain!

[Bazza]

Not unless you're my ex-wife Poddy ???

[Poddy]

Just checked bazza appendage still firmly attached and I would have have remembered getting one installed, so unless you are partial to the same gender you claim you are I can safely say that I am not you EX