eBay vrs42?

From: Doc Shipley <doc_at_mdrconsult.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 16:23:38 2005

vrs wrote:

>>>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.

   Looked at from another point of view, that simply means that the
actual value of the item is limited. In which case, the two of you
realistically set that value.

   Besides, at this point, who are you kidding? You guys now *have* to
negotiate some agreement, either explicit or implicit.

Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 16:23:38 GMT

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