> > Would you also claim that this is unfair to the seller and
> the auction
> > house? This actually is known to happen in the Real World (tm), and
> > I've never heard anyone there complain that it is unethical, or that
> > it constitutes "manipulating the price".
>
> If, as a consequence, the Rembrandt goes for $1 (or any other
> rediculous
> price), I would say that was clearly unfair to the seller.
If the seller didn't know about the concept of a reserve (and
the auction house chose not to inform him about it for some reason)
then clearly the seller should be upset with the auction house.
A and B have clearly behaved impeccably: why on earth should
they be obliged to pour (possibly public) money into the
seller's coffers?
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arcarlini_at_iee.org
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 13:56:29 GMT