eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 11:33:06 2005

> > Broken down
> > 1) two parties can cooporate in order to lower
> > the selling price of an item. agreed?
> > 2) a lowered selling price deprives the seller
> > of revenue. agreed?
> > 3) the seller has an expectation of a fair play,
> > just as buyers have one. agreed?
> > 4) therefore, I view it unrighteous to collude
> > to lower the price.
> You forgot
> 3.5) depriving the seller of revenue in any way is unfair.
> or perhaps
> 3.5) depriving the seller of revenue in this way is unfair.
> or something else along those lines.
> I think that is the part that most of the disagreement has been over.
> It's certainly the part *I* disagree with.

OK, what makes it dubious (IMO) is the assumption (on my part) that David
and I are in fact the total market at this moment for the boards in
question. Which is actually fairly likely.

This puts us in a monopoly position with respect to demand, which in turn
requires exceptional care with respect to business ethics.

In essence, this can create a situation in which 3.5 can be argued.

Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 11:33:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:37:37 BST