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
clearance
> >(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
end
> 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
car,
> which Ford sold in good conscience and received a fair price for, as
*they*
> 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
allows
> >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
due
> to the argument: "It sounds kinda like they might have meant when they
said
> 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
Agreement.
> 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
stop
> the service. (or I suppose, I could contact my lawyer and open legal
action
> 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 new agreement until it was rescinded.)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
agreement.

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