To Scam or not to Scam that is the Question.

[Adam]

Lighten up.

Honestly, John, I wasn't offended. I tried to signify that with the smiley.

I'm not trying to pick on you Adam, but that is not what you wrote in your prior post (#16). Had the seller posted that its' "net worth" was $4799 (as opposed to msrp), there may be a valid argument for misrepresentation.

Now, you have lost me here. The OP said "net worth," and I said "net worth" as I quoted the OP. So that is what I posted in post #16. I believe that you were the first to translate that to "MSRP." I cannot say what term the seller used because I am unwilling to spend the time tracking the sale down on e-bay. I'm just taking the OP's phrasing on that one.

 

[Davemcc]

The OP bid with four minutes left on the auction. A three minute internet search on the product before bidding could have rung enough alarm bells to save this two day discussion.

The auction rules are pretty clear. Bid if you want the item. Don't bid if you don't. The auction doesn't look like a scam, per se*, even if there's no inherent value. The OP should have figured that out before bidding instead of getting his eyes all glazed over at the prospect of getting something for pennies on the dollar.

Caveat Emptor.

*Nothwithstanding the fact that the product itself through its manufacturer and associated website may be considered a scam by some.

 

[3db]

OP didn't do his homework and now he's stuck

The OP bid with four minutes left on the auction. A three minute internet search on the product before bidding could have rung enough alarm bells to save this two day discussion.

The auction rules are pretty clear. Bid if you want the item. Don't bid if you don't. The auction doesn't look like a scam, per se*, even if there's no inherent value. The OP should have figured that out before bidding instead of getting his eyes all glazed over at the prospect of getting something for pennies on the dollar.

Caveat Emptor.

*Nothwithstanding the fact that the product itself through its manufacturer and associated website may be considered a scam by some.

but whats more fustrating is that assh?les like the seller get away with crap like that. Its dishonest, deceitful, and makes that person less than human in my mind. If the add did say networth, then the seller clearly committed a fraud and misrepresented himself.

 

[Seth=L]

They are misleading, I know I wouldn't pay (but then I wouldn't have bid either).

 

[Rickster71]

I was thinking: "Am I the only one here who thinks he needs to pay for them since he legitimately bid and won the item?"

It's not necessarily a "scam" per se if they didn't lie about anything and you thought you were getting a good deal (ie they didn't coerce you). What it is, is a sly and shady business model that tends to prey on the greedy.

Popping out the back of a van and saying "your employer had some extra left over from a job and you need to offload these incredibly expensive speakers" is a scam.

You, on the other hand, put a legitimate bid on a product you did absolutely no prior research on. Pay up and move on.

Stop Clint, I hate to be confused with the facts.
Your right as far as the 'letter of the law' goes.

On the other hand, if EBay was notified of the deceptive tactics
of the (White Van) seller, I'd hope the sale would be voided.
Rick

 

[Johnd]

Stop Clint, I hate to be confused with the facts.
Your right as far as the 'letter of the law' goes.

On the other hand, if EBay was notified of the deceptive tactics
of the (White Van) seller, I'd hope the sale would be voided.
Rick

What "deceptive facts" do you write of?

The only "fact" the op posted was $4799 msrp. Although the op posted "net worth", I think he meant msrp. I cannot imagine a retailer advertising a consumer item as having a net worth.

To repeat: there is nothing deceptive about listing a $1.00 item as having an msrp of $4799. It may not seem right or fair, but their suggested retail is precisely that. As Dave wrote, caveat emptor.

 

[Johnd]

The OP said "net worth," and I said "net worth" as I quoted the OP.

Correct you are Adam. My snafu.

However, I think that was the op's poetic license. I've never seen a receiver or htib listed as having a "net worth." But then again, I don't shop ebay.

 

[Rickster71]

What "deceptive facts" do you write of?

The only "fact" the op posted was $4799 msrp. Although the op posted "net worth", I think he meant msrp. I cannot imagine a retailer advertising a consumer item as having a net worth.

To repeat: there is nothing deceptive about listing a $1.00 item as having an msrp of $4799. It may not seem right or fair, but their suggested retail is precisely that. As Dave wrote, caveat emptor.

IMHO the whole 'White Van' concept is a deceptive tactic.
The deceptive facts would be any specs touted in the white van ad on EBay.
Also, I agree with 'caveat emptor' I really do.

I just think msrp of a legit Co. is one thing.
This seems to me as more of a 'theft by deception' situation. IMHO
I watched Perry Mason as a kid. lol

 

[Thaedium]

Guess I'll play devils advocate here and go the opposite root as some of you here have done.

I definently agree that he should choose to not pay for it. Yes, he did bid on it with 3 minutes to go, and no he did not do his research beforehand. Thats great, but its really meaningless. Fact is, the product is garbage. He is aware of that fact now. So he should go on and buy it and chalk it up to inexperience, haste, greed, or whatever other terms you want to label it? Nonsense. There is no moral compass, or ethical standard that is necessary to adhere to in this case. It's simply self-preservation. Most people who are going to see that ad on E-bay, and that are willing to bid on it are those who don't have the kind of expendable income to go throwing on some serious A/V eq. So they hope, naively, that they are finally that person thats going to catch the break and get something of value for a real deal. Simple fact of the matter is, his money would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps on bills, or food, or education... either way, its simply self-delusional to go on and purchase regardless in the belief that you are somehow morally suprerior as a result of it.

And thats just my humble opinion, so hopefully no one gets really offended?

 

[WmAx]

This is a tough one.

I believe that the OP is obligated to pay. He entered into a legally binding contract, of his own free will. It's irrelevant if the bidder did not research before hand. He consciously decided to ENTER INTO A BINDING CONTRACT. The only way I see that this should be negated is if the seller violates his part of the contract or tries to purposefully defraud the buyer. Has he/she?

I have purchased and sold a bit on eBay, and in a couple of circumstances, I sold and ended up taking a loss due to my error(s). While I hated to pay up, it was my fault, and I was obligated to meet the conditions as I set forth for the auction(s). I willingly agreed to the conditions, and as such, it was my obligation.

-Chris

 

[highfihoney]

I too believe that this guy got caught up in his own greed,thinking he was getting the deal of a lifetime,then snipered a bid in the last 3 minutes winning the auction,yes he is the legal winner but there is no legal binding contract between the buyer & seller.

A contract of any type is only valid if both parties enter it in good faith,if one party enters any contract with the attempt to defraud then there is grounds to break the contract.

We've all seen the deceptive selling tactics of the white van scammers on ebay,the whole auction & all the info contained in the auction is based on a pack of lies & misleading information,the auctions are designed to prey on the ignorant & greedy by misleading buyers all the way.

Take this auction for instance,the seller has a ton of feedback for selling & obviously knows he's scamming customers with false information,also notice how the seller demands paypal only for this auction while all his other auctions gladly take money orders.

http://cgi.ebay.com/GENESIS-MEDIA-LAB-IM4-DIGITAL-FUSION-HOME-THEATER_W0QQitemZ150176418087QQihZ005QQcategoryZ14981QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Being ignorant & greedy does not obligate anybody to follow through with a contract entered into by one party with the attempt to defraud by misrepresentation of the product listed.

 

[Johnd]

I still fail to see any misrepresentation hifi.

I agree it's patently cheap stuff, and one would have to have their head in the sand to not see this train coming. So I feel (pity) for the op and any other sucker that falls into this trap.

But where's the fraud? 500 watt sub? Digital receiver? Remote controlled? MSRP? It's simply not there.

I agree with your gist, but disagree with your opinion that this is not a binding contract. The two parties agreed upon this item for a set price...that is a contract, unless there is some material misrepresentation between those four corners of the ad.

Suck up and pay the man. It's the right thing to do. Consider it one of those life lessons (that one is unfortunately destined to repeat unless one learns).

 

[Johnd]

Guess I'll play devils advocate here ...
its simply self-delusional to go on and purchase regardless in the belief that you are somehow morally suprerior as a result of it.

And thats just my humble opinion, so hopefully no one gets really offended?

Offended? No. Devil's advocate? Yes.

One's character (or lack thereof) is dictated by one's actions. What you propose (to act anonymously, and when it's time to pay the piper, run as fast as possible with one's skirt flailing in the wind (no offense highlander ) is sheer cowardice and turpitude. Be a man, own up to your mistake (quit crying foul...I see none...at least no misrepresentation), and pay!

 

[fmw]

Assuming the speakers work, they are probably a good value. Apparently not good speakers but probably worth the price.

 

[GlocksRock]

I doubt they are worth the price.

 

[highfihoney]

I still fail to see any misrepresentation hifi.

How can anybody fail to see the intentional decption in the auction i posted,i should have used the word "deception" instead of misrepresentation,even though in this case both words have the same outcome.

Lets look at the ways this highly experienced seller cleverly puts this auction together to decieve a new buyer.

1 Paypal only! ,This seller takes money orders for all his other auctions except this one,the seller knows that he needs to collect ASAP before the buyer finds out he was the target of a con.

2 This seller has enough past experience to know full well what he is selling is utter junk, yet he posts a buy it now at 500 times the real value of the product.

3 In the auction in question the seller says nothing about the product in his own words ,instead he choses to copy & paste the misleading & deceptive specs listed from the manufacturer.

4 The seller makes a point to include that the MSRP printed on the box is $4,500, even though he knows its worth $50 tops.

5 Inflated shipping costs,this is intentional to fool the buyer into thinking he's getting a box with heavy equipment inside when in reality it would cost no more than $40 to ship anywhere in the country using UPS.

I still stand by the fact that if somebody is trying to con a buyer,weather it be from deception or intentionally misrepresenting the item the buyer is no longer obligated to complete the transaction, once he discovers he's been a victim of a con.

I cant imagine the fool who would pay a con man after he discovers he's been conned.

One important thing i left out,it is the sellers responsibility to be sure that the description of an item is a true & accurate description, it is the sellers responsibility to research the product they are selling & to supply accurate information to the buyers,at the very least this seller is neglent in the fact that the information he is giving is false & misleading.

 

[Thaedium]

Offended? No. Devil's advocate? Yes.

One's character (or lack thereof) is dictated by one's actions. What you propose (to act anonymously, and when it's time to pay the piper, run as fast as possible with one's skirt flailing in the wind (no offense highlander ) is sheer cowardice and turpitude. Be a man, own up to your mistake (quit crying foul...I see none...at least no misrepresentation), and pay!

Hehe, well it certainly can be made out to seem that way I guess, I just don't agree for some reason. In the case of drinking and driving for instance, if you get caught and then get a lawyer to get it thrown out of court based on police officer error, IE writing down the wrong dates for instance. I would construe that as turning tail and running. In this case however, I think it was simple ignorance on part of the OP, not so much greed, that led him into this venus fly trap. He came this way to get some information on the product because he had a vague suspicion about it. In the end its up to him I guess. In this instance, I could sleep perfectly comfortably knowing I didn't pay the man, I'm sure there are lots of other people he will get to buy this product without losing a beat.

Again, just my $0.02 worth Devil's advocate indeed! heh

 

[Alex2507]

I cant imagine the fool who would pay a con man after he discovers he's been conned.

That says it all as far as I'm concerned. Those things don't sell for thousands of dollars anywhere. Do a bid retraction or say your 9 year old did it or tell paypal to take a flying leap. Whatever. The seller set the bar for how low you can go. Now you are honor bound to sink to at least that level.

 

[Tarub]

How about this....$467 + for two pictures of cellphones. Judge Judy really went fuming.

Is this mean the buyer really have to pay because they did not read the fine print. You be the judge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDK6ctRjqw&mode=related&search=

 

[Thaedium]

Tarub... Wow. That is something else again, but it illustrates my point. If you no you're going to end up paying a scammer, pull out of it. Granted, in this case he is actually getting a HT system, even though the MSRP is out to lunch. Regardless, he is now aware that this product is a total scam product, so why pay for it?

I don't disagree totally with the opinion that he should pay for it... Ultimately, he did no research and its his own fault. Should he pay for it, he will be getting exactly what he expected of it at the time he made the bid. Not what he expects of it now.

Meh, its up to him really.