eBay vrs42?

From: vrs <vrs_at_msn.com>
Date: Sat Feb 12 17:17:47 2005

> Rumor has it that vrs may have mentioned these words:
> >From: "Roger Merchberger" <zmerch_at_30below.com>
> > >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.
>
> And the Ford dealership has every right to deny that sale. Last I checked,
> that's called 'dickering' --> at least in my neck of the woods, and is by
> no means illegal.

You are correct about the dealerships rights, as well as it not being
illegal. The contention was that there was something unethical about it.
You clearly disagree on that point.

> The Ford dealership, if hungry enough for the sale, may choose to sell the
> item lower than their "best advertised price" or they may not -- it's
their
> choice. The buyers have the choice of not buying the Ford for the best
> price the salesman can come up with at that time. 3 months later the price
> may change, or someone else may have bought it by then.

All true of a real Ford dealership, though not the one hypothesised.

> You've provided a straw-man argument.

In this sense all imperfect analogies are straw-man arguments.

> >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.
>
> Huh? Case law is only what shows up on the lawyer's books... not in
> (essentially) a blog run by the company.

I think it would be reasonable for eBay to argue that this is what the eBay
community has been accepting the agreement to mean, and plausible for the
court to agree.

In a technical sense, it isn't "law" until it goes to court, as you point
out. As a practical matter, I don't think it can be safely ignored
(assuming an eBay membership is important).

At this point, however, the discussion has exhausted me, so I am willing to
just let everyone disagree with me that wants to, and not to respond
(henceforth) to any more but the most confusing claims :-).

    Vince
Received on Sat Feb 12 2005 - 17:17:47 GMT