A guy over on Reddit had tickets to a big sporting event but at the last minute couldn’t go, so he sold them on eBay for $600. The event was in less than 24 hours and when he contacted the winning bidder after they didn’t pay for a while, the woman told him that her husband had said that it was too much money and wouldn’t let her go. Never mind that winning an eBay bid is a binding contract and now the guy has little chance of selling the tickets. So he concocted a fiendish scheme to trick her into paying.
What he did is email her from a different email address and say hey, I saw you won those tickets, I’d really like to go, can I buy them from you for $1,000? She agreed, and lo and behold, she contacts him as the original seller and says “oops, changed my mind, I want to pay for those after all.” He brings her the tickets, collects the money, and then goes home and has his sockpuppet bidder back out of the deal with her.
Once again proving there are two user classes on eBay: predator and prey.
Unethical? Yes. Illegal? Probably not. An eBay bid is a binding contract. An email is not.
What do you think? Sound off in the comments.
How I got an uncooperative eBay buyer to pay for her purchase. Was it unethical? [Reddit]
More From Consumerist
-
Con Ed Customer Suing Company For $500 Million, Wants It Banned From New York
-
Grocery Store Employee Tells Woman Not To Send Money To Fake Grandson In Philippines
-
Duo Tries To Scare Pizza Delivery Man Into Giving Up Free Food With Help Of Of Baseball Bat
-
1994 Tax Billing Error Forces Woman Into 5-Year Legal Battle To Save Her House
-
Beware Of Power Company Scammers In Hurricane-Hit Areas
But how would she ever be able to know it was the same guy, its not like she read that article and is sounding off. This guy wrote it and isn’t divulging who he is either. Sounds like he got away with it.
Aside from him essentially telling her by using her quote back on her, the only way he’d have her ebay account is by being the seller to begin with – that information ishidden.
wow, judging by the email, she is one educated, intelligent woman. she sounds so illiterate i’m not sure she even knew the # for 911, so i really doubt much is going to happen to this guy.
SERVES HER RIGHT, did she completely miss the “COMMIT to buy” button?!
a binding contract is a binding contract, whether it be in email form or not. A contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration. an offer is the manifest intent to enter into a contract on certain terms. an acceptance is action or words manifesting an assent to those certain terms. Consideration can be pretty much anything.
Here, the man manifested an intent purchase tickets from the woman on a date, and time, and for a price. These are certain terms. The consideration if you consider this a bilateral contract (he agrees to give her 1000 and she agrees to give him tickets) would be the tickets, and the $1000. The acceptance was manifested by her when she said “yes, I like this.”
This is what we call a valid contract. While there is a defense to contract formation called unilateral mistake, if it applied at all it would apply to release her, not him from the contract and she would be the one seeking to enforce it, obviously.
Was she in breach of her contract with him initially? Yes. Did he engage in fraud? Yes. Was it “right?” Yes. Was it illegal? Probably. If she sought expectancy damages against him in a court of law for his breach of contract would she win? I haven’t a clue. Sadly I am neither clairvoyant, nor licensed in any state for the practice of law…yet. I could see a judge awarding nominal damages plus punitives amounting to 3-400 though just to make sure the dude doesn’t go defrauding anyone again.
Ebay has turned so scammy I sworn off of it for good. I had been on since 1999 and it is really scammy scammerson out there.
It’s no p-p-p-powerbook, but it was effective. I approve.
I thought selling tickets was illegal, I could be wrong. If so then neither of them can go to court about it.
What do you mean illegal, probably not? Inducement via fraud. In fact, what she did wasn’t even a crime, it was a a civil breach of contract. Whereas, what he did was active fraudulent inducement to have her carry out an action for his own benefit. Depending on where he lives, he could have committed a crime.
To top it off, his action invalidates the contract. While before it was enforceable due to her breach, now he’s finalized it by inducing her to complete it via fraud, and has invalidated the whole thing.
Come on, if you are going to report and make a claim about the legality of something, you need to actually know the law or have a lawyer do a basic review for you.
Ebay is different b/c they say using their service IS a contract, and you agree to that by making a bid. (their unwillingness to enforce it is a concern) If i go into a store, and say “boy i like this PS3, i’m going to buy it, wait right here while i go to the bank” and never return, that is not a binding contract. They would have to prove damages that stemmed from that. She still has the $600 tickets, she hasn’t “lost” anything. If i tell someone i will buy something from them, and don’t come through, it doesn’t make me a wanted felon, it just makes me a dick. She was trying to do a little arbitrage, and rip off “payback.” She got what she deserved.
this guy deserves a gold medal. kuddo’s to him. she tried to screw him and in the end she got screwed… bravo.
he just outsmarted her…
Although technically doesn’t this mean she honored the contract?
So the anyone who has actually potentially done anything illegal would be the seller?
Sounds like the whole story is a bit of Fiction. I’d like more information like how did she figure out that the made up email was from the original seller. I can’t see her or anyone making that far of a stretch as to say it was that guy. I think she made it up so she could convince her husband that she should be allowed to buy the tickets and go when the second deal fell threw.
…well he did use her exact quote when he backed out of the second deal…also, why would the buyer have made this up when the SELLER posted it?
Would have been better if he just sued her in court for breach of contract. Get his $600 dollars…and give her the now unusable tickets. The way he did it…she was out the $600, but still was able to use them….wonder if she did use them…
That’s awesome… i cant stand it when people bid and back out or wait a week before paying…
NICE. Thumbs up for this guys creativity.
She owes him $600. He got her to pay him $600. Not how I would’ve done things, but it’s not like he conned her out of more.
That was great thinking. She shouldn’t be bidding if she has no intention of paying for the item, or needs to get permission from her husband first.
I love it.
You leave out the part how the lady was a complete bitch, to boot.
Last I remember, eBay rules state the second highest bidder is on the hook. (stupid, I know) Even if you do not win an auction and you bid and win another, if the fist person backs out, the second person has to pay up.
Nope. The seller can offer it to the second bidder, but the second has the option to decline.
ethical? no.
awesome? YES!
I’m very hard pressed to call it anything but the right thing.
A stereo? Well, go get a new buyer. But the tickets he sold would have zero value very soon. Her winning bid stopped him from selling to others, at perhaps a higher price.
deliciously evil
buyer beware – LOL!
at least she got to go to the game at the agreed-upon price. it was the husband that got the short end of the stick…
I guess he was counting on the fact that she doesn’t know how Ebay works these days. Nowadays, you can’t see the winning bidder’s user name on a completed listing unless you are the seller. The seller apparently was right that she didn’t know this. You need the bidder’s user name to see what she had bid on. A person who saw the listing and wanted the tickets would have no way of figuring this out.
It wasn’t always like that but it has been for a few years.
Beautiful!
In their gross mismanagement of eBay, all of the power now lies in the hands of buyers. Sellers have no recourse whatsoever against scam artists who never pay or pay for items, receive them and then file unwarranted complaints (paypal/ebay ALWAYS sides with the buyer).
As both a seller and a buyer I can tell you that, out of the hundreds of sellers I’ve enjoyed buying from over the years and have bookmarked, a scant handful remain selling on the site. By spitting in the faces of their customer base (their sellers), eBay has become a cheap, tawdry site loaded with sellers hawking crap from China.
Kudos to that seller for taking matters into his own hands. He would have gotten nowhere with eBay.
I read this Article, and wondered what the legality of the ‘con’ really was. Now Its Ebay rule not to use e-mail’s to conduct business outside of Ebay Auctions, so the ‘offer’ on the e-mail is not part of Ebay and is against Ebay policy.
This would make sense in the case of the woman offer to purchase the tickets outside of eBay fee’s and such. Okay the 1st winning bid contact is binding, unless the winner can get eBay to cancel the winning bid. This is possible, check the eBay rules for cancellation of bid.
So the real case is ‘unjust enrichment’ part of the ‘con’ that occurred. The woman clearly stated that She didn’t have money, and established intent on purchasing the tickets to use them at the game at the time of the ‘winning bid’ her intent was to attend the football game.
Then later when the opportunity arises that she can in fact purchase the tickets, and resell them for a personal profit is not in agreement with the 1st intent (of using the tickets to attend a football game). therefore her intent was not in agreement with the original intent established that she could not afford the tickets, and had no intent to attend the football game.
because intent was not consistent, the ‘contract’ by e-mail is not valid, because one cannot have a “completed” a contract when the person has no intent to “complete” the contract.
so there is no unjust enrichment of the buyer and seller in this case.
Unjust enrichment is a legal term denoting a particular type of causative event in which one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another, and an obligation to make restitution arises, regardless of liability for wrongdoing.[1]
Definition:
1.n. a benefit by mistake or chance. Morally and ethically the one who gains a benefit that he or she has not paid or worked for should not keep it to the rightful owner’s detriment. The party that received money, services or property that should have been delivered to or belonged to another must make restitution to the rightful owner. A court may order such restitution in a lawsuit brought by the party who should rightly have the money or property. [2].
2. n. A general equitable principle that a person should not profit at another’s expense and therefore should make restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained. [3]
A couple of questions come to mind. First, did the auction’s time expire? If so, and there were no higher bidders, her bid is a binding contract and his recourse to enforce that contract is via the court system or any arbitration or mediation that E-Bay requires. If the auction had not officially ended, then she has the legal right to withdraw her offer up until the auction for that item ends. In an auction of any sort, the contract is not binding until the hammer drops. Once it drops, the buyer is bound by his or her offer. In the case of E-Bay, once the time limit expires, the highest bidder is contractually bound by his bid.
Second question that comes to mind is was this actually an auction or did he place the tickets on E-Bay using its classified ad function. If it was a classified ad, then there is no contract until she accepts delivery of the tickets. However, if the ad states payment must be made before delivery and she agrees to that, then that would probably be considered a contract by the courts. The question then becomes what damages did he suffer. He would more than likely only prevailed for the face value of the tickets.
Another option he had was to sue based upon the theory of promissory estoppel. In other words, because he had relied upon her promise, he failed to accept a higher offer, she might be found to be bound by that promise.
His proper recourse, especially since this seems to have been a local transaction as he was able to hand deliver the tickets, would have been small claims court. He would have probably been awarded double damages and costs for very little effort. Small claims are pretty easy to file.
Although his e-mail was not a binding contract, it was a fraudulent offer to purchase. So either it was mail fraud or fraudulent collections. Either of which could constitute a federal crime in the correct circumstances. So he was stupid, to say the least because she has both a civil cause of action and the state or feds may have a criminal cause of action.
Last question I have is what about scalping laws in his state. He may have broken some sort of scalping law if he was not an authorized retailer
He was stupid and possibly a criminal on several levels. She broke a contract, but she can now probably sue because of his actions and get her money back and then some.
A couple of questions come to mind. Did he have a right to sell the tickets above face value? If he was not a licensed retailer, he cannot legally the sell tickets above face value. Therefore, there is no contract because a contract must have legality. i.e., you can’t contract to do something illegal.
Second, did the auction’s time expire? If so, and there were no higher bidders, her bid is a binding contract and his recourse to enforce that contract is via the court system or any arbitration or mediation that E-Bay requires. If the auction had not officially ended, then she has the legal right to withdraw her offer up until the auction for that item ends. In an auction of any sort, the contract is not binding until the hammer drops. Once it drops, the buyer is bound by his or her offer. In the case of E-Bay, once the time limit expires, the highest bidder is contractually bound by his bid.
Third question that comes to mind is was this actually an auction or did he place the tickets on E-Bay using its classified ad function. If it was a classified ad, then there is no contract until she accepts delivery of the tickets. However, if the ad states payment must be made before delivery and she agrees to that, then that would probably be considered a contract by the courts. The question then becomes what damages did he suffer. He would more than likely only prevailed for the face value of the tickets unless he could prove that he refused a higher offer based upon her promise.
Another option he had was to sue based upon the theory of promissory estoppel. In other words, because he had relied upon her promise, he failed to accept a higher offer, she might be found to be bound by that promise.
His proper recourse, especially since this seems to have been a local transaction as he was able to hand deliver the tickets, would have been small claims court. He would have probably been awarded double damages and costs for very little effort. Small claims are pretty easy to file.
Although his e-mail was not a binding contract. An offer to purchase is not a binding contract even if it has been accepted by the seller. It was a fraudulent offer to purchase because he had no intent to buy those tickets. However, if she was not damaged by that offer, then there is no fraud, at least by civil law standards. So either it was mail fraud or fraudulent collections. Either of which could constitute a federal crime in the correct circumstances. So he was stupid, to say the least because she has both a civil cause of action and the state or feds may have a criminal cause of action.
He was stupid and possibly a criminal on several levels. She broke a contract, but she can now probably sue because of his actions and get her money back and then some.
That was an excellent way to get his money. The woman should have discussed the tockets with her hubby PRIOR to bidding/winning them. She got what she deserved.