6 ms·

How I got someone on Ebay to buy something they backed out on after winning

59 points by AaronM 16y ago

blhack 16y ago
Wow. A lot of people seem to forget how much money almost $700 is to somebody who doesn't have the $700. The women probably didn't have the money, and really wasn't trying to scam the guy, she probably genuinely made a mistake. Pretend for a second that this wasn't ebay. I go to best buy and start looking at TVs. I find one that is pretty cool, will be great for playing wii fit on, can't wait to get it home, and I tell the sales-person that I'd like to buy it. On the way to the register, I realize "Wait a second, I'm living check to check and rent is due tomorrow. I can't afford a freaking new TV!", so I look at the sales person and say "Oh, I...this is embarrassing, but I actually can't afford this television at all. I'm really sorry." Would Best Buy be in the right here if they sent somebody up to me to tell me "Wow, that is a really cool TV you just bought! My daughter realllly wants that exact TV for her dorm room and you totally bought the last one! I'll buy it from you for $1000!"? Absolutely not. In fact, there would probably be a lawsuit involved. Was it a crappy thing to do to try and back out of an auction like that? Yes, absolutely, but it was an even worse thing to scam the woman out of money that she said she didn't have. Bad moves all around, in my opinion. Edit: wow, reading these reddit comments is really, really disheartening. edit2: I'm not saying that what the women did was okay. She will probably be banned from ebay. This is fine, this is what should happen. Guys, we teach children that two wrongs don't make a right, don't we? Is there a reason we teach them this or do we just like the phrase because it rhymes?
- unexpected 16y ago
  If she didn't have the money, then why did she bid? She broke EBay's TOS - he did not.
  - AndyKelley 16y ago
    Well. He did when he used a fake account to arrange an outside deal.
- SwaroopH 16y ago
  Good point but this did happen on eBay with the auction clearly stating the terms.
- dionidium 16y ago
  The women probably didn't have the money, and really wasn't trying to scam the guy, she probably genuinely made a mistake. Yes, she made a mistake. But it was her mistake. And that mistake would have cost the seller ~$700, because the item she agreed to buy had a shelf-life. And her mistake prevents any other bidders, who presumably would have paid had they won the auction, from attending the event.
  - blhack 16y ago
    And the seller made a mistake by spending $700 on a product that he wouldn't be able to use. They were both wrong.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - alexdias 16y ago
      Unpredictable events happen. He didn't go to the ticket booth and say: "Hey sorry, I can't go, so give me a full refund." People make mistakes, but they have to be responsible for them.
    - Robin_Message 16y ago
      But the seller made a mistake whereas her actions were fraudulent. The world is not black and white, for example, as your comment is downvoted you will be able to witness a variety of shades of grey.
      - blhack 16y ago
        What the seller then turned around and did is an incredibly well known scam that is discussed at length in the comments.
        runjake 16y ago
        You're missing the lesson here.
- etherealG 16y ago
  sorry, but I strongly disagree with your logic here. an auction is way different from a verbal agreement to buy something with no signed contract like in your best buy example. what if your scenario was an auction for a high value item like a painting instead? would it be ok for her to back out then?
- noahc 16y ago
  I think you've just hit on two schools of thought. One school of thought is due unto others as you would have them due unto you. I believe PG once told a startup that they should pay back all other investors first. This is an example of this. PG didn't come out ahead, but maybe the startup founders got to save face. Reputation is more valuable than currency anyway. The other school of though is that we are to make the world a better place (more fair and just). This view of the world justifies almost any end. This seems to be the approach that the Redditor took.
- mattwdelong 16y ago
  The major difference is that a ticket is a perishable item. She entered a binding agreement that, in exchange for her money, she can have the tickets. Had she not bid, and won the tickets, he could have sold them to one of the other apparent bidders and he, himself, would not be out any money. She was wrong. This was a mistake on her part, not his. However, with that being said, had this guy not been a douche he would have sold the tickets to her at face value (maybe + gas) but nothing more. In the end, they are both in the wrong.
- ig1 16y ago
  Telling a salesman you'd like to buy a product doesn't contractually oblige you to buy, submitting an order for a product does. Try calling an airline after you've ordered a ticket online to explain you can't afford it and want a refund. Just because it's ebay doesn't mean it's any different.
  - blhack 16y ago
    She never actually got to the point of paying for it. Call a hotel, make a reservation, then don't show up. Does the hotel come after you for the money? If they do, they would use the court system, they wouldn't use a well known con to recoup their loss.
    - christoph 16y ago
      A lot of hotels i've used in the last few years in the US and Europe won't let you book a room unless you give them credit/debit card details (certainly online anyway). Generally if you don't cancel 24hrs before, you either pay the full amount or a no show amount (varies hotel to hotel).
      - ig1 16y ago
        Certainly that's been true for every hotel I've booked. It's also true of some busy restaurants (they normally charge a fixed fee per head for no-shows).
    - bcrescimanno 16y ago
      Actually, most hotels have a policy that if you don't cancel your reservation at least 24 hours in advance, you will be charged for at least one night.
  - cosmicray 16y ago
    > Telling a salesman you'd like to buy a product doesn't contractually oblige you to buy, submitting an order for a product does. When the order is binding, has much to do with how the ToS of the site/store is written. Some sites take the attitude that an order is not binding (on the buyer or seller) until payment is made. Some sites take the opposite view. In some cases it gets rather squirrelly when you have a seller with a limited quantity of the item (like 1 or 2) and a buyer who wants to use a very slow payment method (check, MO, etc). What do you do if the buyer wants the last one, in a hot market, but also wants you to wait week +/- for payment ?
- alexdias 16y ago
  She didn't say that she didn't have the money. Quote: "I overbid and my husband won't let me buy these. Sorry and enjoy the game! :)" Yes, I do agree that it was wrong to scam her on it, but her attitude over the whole situation wasn't the best either. When she got the offer for 1,000$, she raised it to 1,100$. Then that e-mail that she sent in response isn't so good either.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Guys, we teach children that two wrongs don't make a right, don't we? Is there a reason we teach them this or do we just like the phrase because it rhymes? Well, she may have made an "honest mistake." Or she may not. We can debate whether she should lose $600 or the author should lose the tickets, but that debate can only happen if the author made a decent attempt to prevent the loss, for example by offering the tickets second chance to other bidders or by driving down to the game and trying to sell the tickets for cash. He then could have pursued her for the difference between the $600 she promised to pay and whatever he managed to obtain for them using reasonable means to sell the tickets. However, the author took it upon himself to defraud her out of the $600. He changed the situation from getting her to pay for the tickets she bought for herself into getting her to attempt to make money from arbitrage based on a false and fraudulent promise of his. This is absolutely wrong, and it makes no difference whether she had originally backed out of the transaction or not. The story sets her up as a "bad woman" to play upon some of the most vile behaviours social animals have, namely believing that there are two classes of people, "good" and "bad," and the bad people don't deserve any decency or protection under the law. I see defrauding her into paying for the tickets exactly the same way that I see bullying visible minorities or depriving persons we think are guilty of a crime of their legal rights. It stems from the same "They're a bad person, they don't deserve consideration" beliefs. It may seem like a horrible Godwin-esque comparison, but how is this different from torturing a petty thief into making a confession? I don't mean to suggest that this is bad because "They might be innocent," I mean even if they're actually guilty, don't we as a society still want to treat them with decency? This woman may have acted badly. But we should still treat her with decency, lest we as a society become vile ourselves. In my judgment, both parties should be investigated by eBay. I don't know her side of the story, so I can't say what eBay ought to do about the choice she made initially. But if the author acted as described here, I would expect eBay to condemn his choice.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    Mostly agree, but after the woman agreed to buy the tickets, I think the onus is on her to resell them in an effort to reduce her loss. Another solution would be for them both to negotiate a lower price.
- landhar 16y ago
  I totally agree with the whole "two wrongs don't make a right". But I think that the very essence of the scam the OP pulled on the woman prooves that she did have the $700 dollars. If she didn't have $700 to spare on those tickets then she would have told the Payback user that she actually didn't buy the tickets and that he should contact the OP. Instead she decided that it was ok to pay $700 to get a $400 cut... Remember the saying: "You can't cheat an honest man"
- tedunangst 16y ago
  If Best Buy had to remove that TV from inventory such that they would never be able to sell it to anyone else, they would probably pursue finishing the deal more vigorously.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dpritchett 16y ago
Please don't be taken in by this masterfully crafted story without thinking it through carefully. The OP on reddit plays on many of our collective sympathies, but he unfortunately omits any semblance of objectivity from his story. == Things that make us sympathetic to the OP == - He's a redditor, just like many of us - He just wanted the money she promised him, nothing more - He couldn't attend the game - this presumes he wanted to - He used Google Voice - cool - She was mean to him (and most of us are men, aren't we?) - He has just added a cancer-stricken relative to the story along with a donation button - She writes poorly, he does not == Context this story sorely needs but is unlikely to ever get == - Face value of the tickets - What his sunk cost is for the tickets ($0? $50? $600?) - How he found himself with only 24 hours to unload the tickets - Any sort of verification of the cancer-donation story
- skorgu 16y ago
  I'd say all of those are irrelevant to the central moral/legal premise which is: did she enter into a contract to purchase the tickets? If she entered a bid on ebay she is obligated to go through with the transaction. That said the cancer thing is sketchy as hell in context, thanks for mentioning it.
  - cake 16y ago
    Actually on Ebay she is not, she could have stated that she entered a wrong bid : http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/questions/retract-bid.html http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/questions/retract-bid.html
  - dpritchett 16y ago
    I agree that the details are irrelevant to the legality of backing out on an auction. This story is compelling (and thus upvoted) precisely because of the emotional levers it pulls. The thread can't be solely about eBay policy.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    What's sketchy about trying to leverage unexpected popularity for the benefit of the American Cancer Society?
aberkowitz 16y ago
Anybody who uses paypal should be aware that there is not an adequate system in place to insure an honest and amicable transaction occurs between the buyer and sell. That's just a risk you take for using the worlds biggest online auction site. The way the poster went about getting his money back was absolutely stupid. Whether it was amoral or not, he could be criminally prosecuted for his actions.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  What crime did he commit? He made a verbal offer to buy goods at a certain price, and then backed out. Did his word constitute a verbal contract? Those are notoriously difficult (read: impossible) to prove in court. Whether or not what he did was moral, I know of no enforceable law he violated. She, on the other hand, entered a binding contract on eBay and then violated it. She could be prosecuted; he, as far as I can tell, could not.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwwoelfel 16y ago
    He committed fraud, which is a crime and a violation of civil law. Your characterization of his actions as "he made a verbal offer to buy goods at a certain price, and then backed out" leaves out the fact that he intended to back out all along, and that the lie was for personal gain. If he had intended to buy the tickets for $1,100 from her, he would not have first sold them to her for $620.
    - jemfinch 16y ago
      Fraud is deception with the intent of gain. By contract he already had the right to her $600, so he didn't deceive her for gain, but for equity. The woman would have difficulty establishing that she suffered consequent damages (an essential legal component of fraud) when she had already entered into a contract to perform the very same transaction.
thow_away1 16y ago
My view on this is probably a bit scewed. I grew up in an around auctions, currently work in an auction, my entire family works in auto auctions. What happened here isn't even slightly uncommon in our industry, it just comes with the territory. What we sell is cars, thousands of them per week. If somebody bids on a car, but then doesn't pay up...they don't get the car. They might get thrown into something called a "KO book", which means that they'll be banned from our auction, and everybody else's. That's it. That's the end of it. If one of our sellers pulled what this seller did, they would almost certainly be banned from ever doing business with us again.
- torme 16y ago
  While I get what you're saying, I think an important point here thats been mentioned several times is the fact that the tickets lose all value as result of the buyer backing out. As a completely unrealistic example, imagine if by some magic, cars that weren't sold exploded. If you had a buyer back out, and as a result, you could never sell that car again, that person would most definitely be put in the "KO book". I think the situation is different, if only slightly. There should be some understanding from the buyer of the tickets that backing out is potentially costing the seller a lot of money. For this, I can understand the sellers frustration, if only because he might have had several extremely viable offers outside of hers, that are now lost. That said, I don't agree with his reaction at all. Is it not possible to try and contact the other interested buyers who were out bid?
SHOwnsYou 16y ago
This is sickening. 20+ upvotes on posts applauding this guy for scamming someone? She did agree to buy the tickets in as binding a situation that can arise in an online auction, but to scam her to get the money is wrong. I'm not rich and $600 is a lot of money to me. But I would rather eat a loss of $600 than scam someone to gain that money because $600, $6000, or any other number, isn't worth it.

59 points by AaronM 16y ago

Wow. A lot of people seem to forget how much money almost $700 is to somebody who doesn't have the $700. The women probably didn't have the money, and really wasn't trying to scam the guy, she probably genuinely made a mistake. Pretend for a second that this wasn't ebay. I go to best buy and start looking at TVs. I find one that is pretty cool, will be great for playing wii fit on, can't wait to get it home, and I tell the sales-person that I'd like to buy it. On the way to the register, I realize "Wait a second, I'm living check to check and rent is due tomorrow. I can't afford a freaking new TV!", so I look at the sales person and say "Oh, I...this is embarrassing, but I actually can't afford this television at all. I'm really sorry." Would Best Buy be in the right here if they sent somebody up to me to tell me "Wow, that is a really cool TV you just bought! My daughter realllly wants that exact TV for her dorm room and you totally bought the last one! I'll buy it from you for $1000!"? Absolutely not. In fact, there would probably be a lawsuit involved. Was it a crappy thing to do to try and back out of an auction like that? Yes, absolutely, but it was an even worse thing to scam the woman out of money that she said she didn't have. Bad moves all around, in my opinion. Edit: wow, reading these reddit comments is really, really disheartening. edit2: I'm not saying that what the women did was okay. She will probably be banned from ebay. This is fine, this is what should happen. Guys, we teach children that two wrongs don't make a right, don't we? Is there a reason we teach them this or do we just like the phrase because it rhymes?

unexpected 16y ago
If she didn't have the money, then why did she bid? She broke EBay's TOS - he did not.
- AndyKelley 16y ago
  Well. He did when he used a fake account to arrange an outside deal.
SwaroopH 16y ago
Good point but this did happen on eBay with the auction clearly stating the terms.
dionidium 16y ago
The women probably didn't have the money, and really wasn't trying to scam the guy, she probably genuinely made a mistake. Yes, she made a mistake. But it was her mistake. And that mistake would have cost the seller ~$700, because the item she agreed to buy had a shelf-life. And her mistake prevents any other bidders, who presumably would have paid had they won the auction, from attending the event.
- blhack 16y ago
  And the seller made a mistake by spending $700 on a product that he wouldn't be able to use. They were both wrong.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - alexdias 16y ago
    Unpredictable events happen. He didn't go to the ticket booth and say: "Hey sorry, I can't go, so give me a full refund." People make mistakes, but they have to be responsible for them.
  - Robin_Message 16y ago
    But the seller made a mistake whereas her actions were fraudulent. The world is not black and white, for example, as your comment is downvoted you will be able to witness a variety of shades of grey.
    - blhack 16y ago
      What the seller then turned around and did is an incredibly well known scam that is discussed at length in the comments.
      - runjake 16y ago
        You're missing the lesson here.
etherealG 16y ago
sorry, but I strongly disagree with your logic here. an auction is way different from a verbal agreement to buy something with no signed contract like in your best buy example. what if your scenario was an auction for a high value item like a painting instead? would it be ok for her to back out then?
noahc 16y ago
I think you've just hit on two schools of thought. One school of thought is due unto others as you would have them due unto you. I believe PG once told a startup that they should pay back all other investors first. This is an example of this. PG didn't come out ahead, but maybe the startup founders got to save face. Reputation is more valuable than currency anyway. The other school of though is that we are to make the world a better place (more fair and just). This view of the world justifies almost any end. This seems to be the approach that the Redditor took.
mattwdelong 16y ago
The major difference is that a ticket is a perishable item. She entered a binding agreement that, in exchange for her money, she can have the tickets. Had she not bid, and won the tickets, he could have sold them to one of the other apparent bidders and he, himself, would not be out any money. She was wrong. This was a mistake on her part, not his. However, with that being said, had this guy not been a douche he would have sold the tickets to her at face value (maybe + gas) but nothing more. In the end, they are both in the wrong.
ig1 16y ago
Telling a salesman you'd like to buy a product doesn't contractually oblige you to buy, submitting an order for a product does. Try calling an airline after you've ordered a ticket online to explain you can't afford it and want a refund. Just because it's ebay doesn't mean it's any different.
- blhack 16y ago
  She never actually got to the point of paying for it. Call a hotel, make a reservation, then don't show up. Does the hotel come after you for the money? If they do, they would use the court system, they wouldn't use a well known con to recoup their loss.
  - christoph 16y ago
    A lot of hotels i've used in the last few years in the US and Europe won't let you book a room unless you give them credit/debit card details (certainly online anyway). Generally if you don't cancel 24hrs before, you either pay the full amount or a no show amount (varies hotel to hotel).
    - ig1 16y ago
      Certainly that's been true for every hotel I've booked. It's also true of some busy restaurants (they normally charge a fixed fee per head for no-shows).
  - bcrescimanno 16y ago
    Actually, most hotels have a policy that if you don't cancel your reservation at least 24 hours in advance, you will be charged for at least one night.
- cosmicray 16y ago
  > Telling a salesman you'd like to buy a product doesn't contractually oblige you to buy, submitting an order for a product does. When the order is binding, has much to do with how the ToS of the site/store is written. Some sites take the attitude that an order is not binding (on the buyer or seller) until payment is made. Some sites take the opposite view. In some cases it gets rather squirrelly when you have a seller with a limited quantity of the item (like 1 or 2) and a buyer who wants to use a very slow payment method (check, MO, etc). What do you do if the buyer wants the last one, in a hot market, but also wants you to wait week +/- for payment ?
alexdias 16y ago
She didn't say that she didn't have the money. Quote: "I overbid and my husband won't let me buy these. Sorry and enjoy the game! :)" Yes, I do agree that it was wrong to scam her on it, but her attitude over the whole situation wasn't the best either. When she got the offer for 1,000$, she raised it to 1,100$. Then that e-mail that she sent in response isn't so good either.
raganwald 16y ago
Guys, we teach children that two wrongs don't make a right, don't we? Is there a reason we teach them this or do we just like the phrase because it rhymes? Well, she may have made an "honest mistake." Or she may not. We can debate whether she should lose $600 or the author should lose the tickets, but that debate can only happen if the author made a decent attempt to prevent the loss, for example by offering the tickets second chance to other bidders or by driving down to the game and trying to sell the tickets for cash. He then could have pursued her for the difference between the $600 she promised to pay and whatever he managed to obtain for them using reasonable means to sell the tickets. However, the author took it upon himself to defraud her out of the $600. He changed the situation from getting her to pay for the tickets she bought for herself into getting her to attempt to make money from arbitrage based on a false and fraudulent promise of his. This is absolutely wrong, and it makes no difference whether she had originally backed out of the transaction or not. The story sets her up as a "bad woman" to play upon some of the most vile behaviours social animals have, namely believing that there are two classes of people, "good" and "bad," and the bad people don't deserve any decency or protection under the law. I see defrauding her into paying for the tickets exactly the same way that I see bullying visible minorities or depriving persons we think are guilty of a crime of their legal rights. It stems from the same "They're a bad person, they don't deserve consideration" beliefs. It may seem like a horrible Godwin-esque comparison, but how is this different from torturing a petty thief into making a confession? I don't mean to suggest that this is bad because "They might be innocent," I mean even if they're actually guilty, don't we as a society still want to treat them with decency? This woman may have acted badly. But we should still treat her with decency, lest we as a society become vile ourselves. In my judgment, both parties should be investigated by eBay. I don't know her side of the story, so I can't say what eBay ought to do about the choice she made initially. But if the author acted as described here, I would expect eBay to condemn his choice.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  Mostly agree, but after the woman agreed to buy the tickets, I think the onus is on her to resell them in an effort to reduce her loss. Another solution would be for them both to negotiate a lower price.
landhar 16y ago
I totally agree with the whole "two wrongs don't make a right". But I think that the very essence of the scam the OP pulled on the woman prooves that she did have the $700 dollars. If she didn't have $700 to spare on those tickets then she would have told the Payback user that she actually didn't buy the tickets and that he should contact the OP. Instead she decided that it was ok to pay $700 to get a $400 cut... Remember the saying: "You can't cheat an honest man"
tedunangst 16y ago
If Best Buy had to remove that TV from inventory such that they would never be able to sell it to anyone else, they would probably pursue finishing the deal more vigorously.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dpritchett 16y ago

Please don't be taken in by this masterfully crafted story without thinking it through carefully. The OP on reddit plays on many of our collective sympathies, but he unfortunately omits any semblance of objectivity from his story. == Things that make us sympathetic to the OP == - He's a redditor, just like many of us - He just wanted the money she promised him, nothing more - He couldn't attend the game - this presumes he wanted to - He used Google Voice - cool - She was mean to him (and most of us are men, aren't we?) - He has just added a cancer-stricken relative to the story along with a donation button - She writes poorly, he does not == Context this story sorely needs but is unlikely to ever get == - Face value of the tickets - What his sunk cost is for the tickets ($0? $50? $600?) - How he found himself with only 24 hours to unload the tickets - Any sort of verification of the cancer-donation story

skorgu 16y ago
I'd say all of those are irrelevant to the central moral/legal premise which is: did she enter into a contract to purchase the tickets? If she entered a bid on ebay she is obligated to go through with the transaction. That said the cancer thing is sketchy as hell in context, thanks for mentioning it.
- cake 16y ago
  Actually on Ebay she is not, she could have stated that she entered a wrong bid : http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/questions/retract-bid.html http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/questions/retract-bid.html
- dpritchett 16y ago
  I agree that the details are irrelevant to the legality of backing out on an auction. This story is compelling (and thus upvoted) precisely because of the emotional levers it pulls. The thread can't be solely about eBay policy.
- jemfinch 16y ago
  What's sketchy about trying to leverage unexpected popularity for the benefit of the American Cancer Society?

aberkowitz 16y ago

Anybody who uses paypal should be aware that there is not an adequate system in place to insure an honest and amicable transaction occurs between the buyer and sell. That's just a risk you take for using the worlds biggest online auction site. The way the poster went about getting his money back was absolutely stupid. Whether it was amoral or not, he could be criminally prosecuted for his actions.

jemfinch 16y ago
What crime did he commit? He made a verbal offer to buy goods at a certain price, and then backed out. Did his word constitute a verbal contract? Those are notoriously difficult (read: impossible) to prove in court. Whether or not what he did was moral, I know of no enforceable law he violated. She, on the other hand, entered a binding contract on eBay and then violated it. She could be prosecuted; he, as far as I can tell, could not.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- dwwoelfel 16y ago
  He committed fraud, which is a crime and a violation of civil law. Your characterization of his actions as "he made a verbal offer to buy goods at a certain price, and then backed out" leaves out the fact that he intended to back out all along, and that the lie was for personal gain. If he had intended to buy the tickets for $1,100 from her, he would not have first sold them to her for $620.
  - jemfinch 16y ago
    Fraud is deception with the intent of gain. By contract he already had the right to her $600, so he didn't deceive her for gain, but for equity. The woman would have difficulty establishing that she suffered consequent damages (an essential legal component of fraud) when she had already entered into a contract to perform the very same transaction.

thow_away1 16y ago

My view on this is probably a bit scewed. I grew up in an around auctions, currently work in an auction, my entire family works in auto auctions. What happened here isn't even slightly uncommon in our industry, it just comes with the territory. What we sell is cars, thousands of them per week. If somebody bids on a car, but then doesn't pay up...they don't get the car. They might get thrown into something called a "KO book", which means that they'll be banned from our auction, and everybody else's. That's it. That's the end of it. If one of our sellers pulled what this seller did, they would almost certainly be banned from ever doing business with us again.

torme 16y ago
While I get what you're saying, I think an important point here thats been mentioned several times is the fact that the tickets lose all value as result of the buyer backing out. As a completely unrealistic example, imagine if by some magic, cars that weren't sold exploded. If you had a buyer back out, and as a result, you could never sell that car again, that person would most definitely be put in the "KO book". I think the situation is different, if only slightly. There should be some understanding from the buyer of the tickets that backing out is potentially costing the seller a lot of money. For this, I can understand the sellers frustration, if only because he might have had several extremely viable offers outside of hers, that are now lost. That said, I don't agree with his reaction at all. Is it not possible to try and contact the other interested buyers who were out bid?

SHOwnsYou 16y ago

This is sickening. 20+ upvotes on posts applauding this guy for scamming someone? She did agree to buy the tickets in as binding a situation that can arise in an online auction, but to scam her to get the money is wrong. I'm not rich and $600 is a lot of money to me. But I would rather eat a loss of $600 than scam someone to gain that money because $600, $6000, or any other number, isn't worth it.