4 ms·

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

by 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.

by blhack 16y ago

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.