eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 14:26:15 2005

From: "Roger Merchberger" <zmerch_at_30below.com>
> Rumor has it that vrs may have mentioned these words:
> >You missed my point. It was the conspiracy to wait for half-price
> >(in a contrived context, where it was important that the total demand and
> >supply were known) that was the dubious behavior.
> The problem with your analogy is that the demand isn't as great as you let
> on, else they would both purchase said vehicles whatever the price. The
> result is this: There was 1 car. Two people wanted the car and was willing
> to share that one car. There was therefore, only enough demand for one
> which Ford sold in good conscience and received a fair price for, as
> offered the 1/2 off clearance sale.[1]
> No foul there.

So next time, I suggest they walk into the dealership together, and just
demand the car for scrap value.

> >While there may be an interpretation of the eBay user agreement that
> >this behavior, I don't believe that it is eBay's interpretation.
> Then eBay should have worded it better. If it's up to that much
> 'interpretation' it sounds like eBay is the 'bad guy' --> not being clear
> enough to spell out what they mean. In that context, eBay might just be
> *hoping* enough people interpreted it in the way you do, which is good for
> them; but without specifying exactly what they mean, you can't cry foul
> to the argument: "It sounds kinda like they might have meant when they
> that."

Fair enough.

> >And I think that eBay has been pretty clear about it, from what I have
> >seen of their history on user complaints.
> I didn't agree to eBay's user complaints, I agreed to their User
> If eBay was unclear in that document, then they need to amend or edit that
> document, then I need to *agree* to that document. As a user of their
> services, I can either agree to their amended user agreement, or I can
> the service. (or I suppose, I could contact my lawyer and open legal
> to have them remove that section of the document if I felt it was illegal,
> but that would be 1) costly and quite possibly 2) pointless. However, I
> would have to do that before I agreed to it, else I would be bound by the
> new agreement until it was rescinded.)
> Until then I did not agree to what's in their user complaints section, and
> cannot be bound by it. And as currently listed in the user agreement,
> collusion to *not pay* is not sufficiently covered, (IMHO, but IANAL) only
> shilling.

You may feel that way, but the complaints that have gone before are
effectively the "case law" with respect to interpretation of the user

Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 14:26:15 GMT

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