On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is hypocritical. If you are going to argue on ethical grounds that
> it's unfair to extend > the auction (even though the seller has that
> right), then you have to admit that it's
> also unfair for the buyer to try and force the seller to sell it for
> significantly less than it's worth.
>
> Chris,
>
> I don't follow the logic here. I would be "forcing" him to sell it at a
> lowball price only if he stipulated a time limit. If he said, "OBO by the
> end of 30 April," you bet I'd "force" him to comply with his promise.
Ok, that sounds fair. I was referring to your irritation with sellers who
use OBO without putting a time limit on it. At least, I think you were
irritated about that. If not, please correct me. :) I interpreted your
words to mean that if a buyer put in a bid (even a very low one) on an OBO
item and the seller extended the sale indefinitely until they got a better
offer, then the seller is being unfair to the buyer. My point is that
maybe they are, but it's also unfair for the buyer to expect the seller to
end the sale before the seller is ready to, possibly forcing the seller to
accept a ridiculously low price. If person X offers a seller $100 for a
$500 OBO item, and the seller doesn't get any higher bids within the first
few weeks or even a month or so, then is the seller being
unfair/misleading/unethical by continuing to solicit offers indefinitely?
If you don't think so, then we agree. If you say yes, then is it
unfair/unethical for the buyer to expect the seller to sell a $500 item
for $100 (provided that the seller didn't specify a date)? If you think
that both scenarios are rather unfair, then I can understand that. If you
think that the seller is being unfair but the buyer is not, then I
disagree.
Of course, this is only if the seller does not specify a specific date or
minimum bid. If they do, then obviously it's unethical (or at best
questionable) for them to change their mind later. This is negotiating in
bad faith, and I'd be wary of dealing with someone like this unless they
had a very good reason.
If you're a literalist, then you'll recognize (and I think you've said
this before) that OBO clearly allows the seller to take as much time as
they want to accept offers, since it doesn't limit them to a time
frame. I wouldn't say that this is unfair, just that it's not the best
way of conducting a sale. There's nothing wrong with a seller holding out
until they receive an offer that they're happy with, but it would have
been better had they specified a minimum offer. I don't think it's fair
to expect a seller to specify a time frame for the bidding without having
a minimum bid (works well on eBay sometimes, but not as much offline).
I think what I'm essentially trying to say is that I don't see anything
misleading about OBO, even though it's not my preferred method. It's just
saying that the seller will accept the given price or the best offer that
they receive within a time frame that they choose but do not have to
announce to anyone (often the time it takes to get a reasonable offer).
I find this a little awkward, but essentially fair. If the buyer wants
the item badly enough that the waiting is a problem, then maybe they
should offer more for it if the seller agrees to sell it to them
immediately. I suppose each situation is unique.
chris
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
