>About two weeks ago, I did catch someone colluding on an auction of mine
>(an Army radio part, incidently). Actually, he told be that he did not bid
>so he could let a buddy get it. It sold pretty darn cheap - about half
>what I wanted, and below street price. Bad move on his part, as I would
>have never known. So what am I to do?
I don't get it.
How is this any different then if I go with a friend to a restaurant, and
we both order Apple Pie for dessert, and they tell us "Sorry, there is
only one peice left", and I change my order to Key Lime Pie instead,
because I know my friend would really like the Apple Pie.
If doing this was unethical, then rightfully, my friend and I should
start a bidding war to get the last peice of Apple Pie. It isn't fair to
the restaurant for me to decide I don't want it so my buddy can have it,
because then the restaurant fails to make as much money as they could
have had we started a bidding war over the peice.
I just don't get it.
What would you have had happen? The two friends bid against each other
until it reaches your wished price point, and THEN the nice guy stops
bidding to let his friend win it?
I know it is crappy, and I sympathise with any sellers that loose out,
but I still don't get how it is unethical for someone to choose not to
bid against a friend, or anyone else that they know really wants
something.
Of course, like anything related to ethics or morals, there is no hard
black and white rule. It is all always about the situation at hand. So I
don't think it can be declared that it is in fact ethical or not ethical
at all. All that can be decided is if one particular situation is or is
not (in your example, I don't see it as a problem, and in the one that
started this thread, we would have to know more about David's intentions
with Vince to make a decision)
-chris
<
http://www.mythtech.net>
Received on Sun Feb 13 2005 - 00:59:07 GMT