How far does "Buyer Beware" reach- should Ebay interfere?

How to deal with a false ad claim on Ebay?


  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .

chrimess

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
1,416
Reaction score
3
Location
Ft Mill, SC
Hi all,
on Ebay, the following listing repeatedly advertises a "Koa" uke by Koalana, those in the know or with keen eyes will certainly know better (sapele)- should Ebay react to my reporting the item or should the seller correct the listing based on my repeated requests to make it right or should the old "caveat emptor" rule prevail?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/KOALANA-by-...668?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7f1bc98c
 
Last edited:
I think the seller should correct the listing, but at the same time buyers have to have some idea what they're buying.

I highly doubt eBay will care. They're just out to make money, and they probably get swamped with emails like that about everything under the sun.

This comes up on every forum I visit. Fake Martins on the Martin forum, bad spinning wheels on the knitting/spinning forum, incorrect vintage typewriters on the manual typewriter forum...and all these people are emailing the seller and eBay saying fix it. Some sellers will, some won't. Buyers need to have some knowledge though. I'm not saying they need to know everything about the brand and the history of everything ukulele related, but you should have a general idea.
 
If it was a counterfeit designer handbag, they'd correct if given good info. eBay should do the same here.
 
I'm particularly noted for my zero-tolerance attitude to scammers and snake oil salesmen (anyone remember the Ukulele Explosion dude ?), so a fourth option, possibly involving flamethrowers and/or testicular removal, would better fit my feelings on this matter.
 
Last edited:
I second that handbag comment. My wife tried to sell a real Louis Vuitton bag on ebay and ebay shut down the posting because we couldn't verify with a receipt (or some other proof) that it was real. (Still trying to figure out how to sell that bag if anyone has suggestions).

But I think someone should at least send an email to ebay asking them to correct it. I would guess that there is even a link on ebay somewhere for reporting fraud. Hopefully just ask for a correction though. It could be an honest mistake.
 
In the handbag example, the difference it it was probably someone from the manufacturer themselves monitoring and complaining to eBay.

The problem here isn't that it's a cheap knockoff, it's that the seller has a fundamentally incorrect statement in their ad.

It seems, though, that if the item's going to get bids beyond its value, it will be due to the autograph, not a misconception of what kind of wood it is. For those who care enough to make the distinction between koa and sapele, they'll either already know that KoAlanas aren't koa or they'll find it out when they do their due diligence (AS EVERY BUYER SHOULD DO).

This is pretty clearly a 'caveat emptor' situation that eBay would have no real business getting in the middle of.
 
The rule of caveat emptor does not permit fraud.

Caveat emptor protects the seller from suit for defects that are knowable and unconcealed, or about which the sell is unaware.
It does not allow the seller to lie about the property and sell it based on that lie.
 
Not that I am protecting the seller, but looking at the seller's other auctions (all hotwheels) and a 100% positive feedback score I'd say this is a case of seller ignorance vs fraud.

So who do we blame if both the seller, and buyer are uneducated?
 
It appears that line in the description that says it's koa is quoted from the card that they are including in the auction, and that's all that they really have to go by since it was an inherited item. In the past, there were koa KoAlanas on the KoAloha website, so someone not familiar with ukuleles might not have been aware that the description on the card wasn't accurate. If I were the seller, I would have ended the auction to research it further to avoid SNAD claims. At least eBay would cover the buyer with a SNAD claim if they don't correct the auction before it ends.
 
I found a way to ask a question of the seller and pointed about the apparent discrepancy. I agree with Skitzic, I don't think it was intentional, I just don't think he knows much about ukuleles.
 
Nice one, Mike, I told the lady (Jenny) three times about the misunderstanding and she just shrugged it off....

...but then again, "Not all great ukuleles are made in Hawaii..."

I found a way to ask a question of the seller and pointed about the apparent discrepancy. I agree with Skitzic, I don't think it was intentional, I just don't think he knows much about ukuleles.
 
Last edited:
If the seller is notified of the error (or false claim) repeatedly and shrugs it off or plainly ignores it, I feel that what may have been lack of education, competence or research in the beginning, becomes deliberate misleading of potential buyers. Putting the responsibility on the buyer is a little off, in my opinion, because it would pretty much encourage fraudulent offers.
 
The rule of caveat emptor does not permit fraud.

Caveat emptor protects the seller from suit for defects that are knowable and unconcealed, or about which the sell is unaware.
It does not allow the seller to lie about the property and sell it based on that lie.

Exactly! The seller is responsible for his/her representations. They cannot make false assertions, whether intentionally or otherwise, and then hide behind the idea of caveat emptor.
 
I am not an expert in many things, but one of the things I am an expert in is the Captain Marvel comics published by Fawcett Publications from 1940-1952. I collected them obsessively for years and learned everything I could. The holy grail of the Fawcett comics collector is Whiz Comics #1 (also known as #2, but let's not worry about that now!).

In the 1970's DC Comics, having purchased the rights to the then defunct Fawcett characters, release a series of reprints, including Whiz #1. These were nearly exect reprints, except for the fact they were larger than the originals, had a different paper quality, and came inside an cardboard outer cover. The outer cover had all the info about it being a reprint; without the outer cover, the comic was and exact copy of the original. As a result, many people mistook these for originals, or deliberately remove the outer cover and passed them off as original to uneducated buyers. Value of the original, depending on condition, could be well upward of $10,000; the reprint, without the outer cover, maybe a buck.

A couple of years ago, I saw an ebay seller offering the reprint of Whiz #1 as the original. There are actually several ways to identify the reprint, the easiest being that the words "Make Way for Captain Marvel" which appeared on the original were deleted for the reprint, due to a trademark conflict with Marvel Comics. I pointed out to the seller that he was in error, offering it as an original, assuming he just didn't know. He responded with an angry tirade telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. I responded with dozens of sites documenting the differences. He responded angrily again, telling me this was a "special edition" of the original and that's why it was different. It became increasingly clear that he was either willfully ignorant, or was deliberately fraudulent. As it happened the issue was bid up to nearly $500, an absurd price for the reprint. I notified ebay, but as far as I know, they took no action.
 
that is highly interesting, at the end of the day this is what is supposed to differentiate Craigslist from Ebay and why the Ebay staff is many times a multiple of Craigslist per transaction.
BTW: you would not be looking to offload a counterfeit Moore Bettah tenor, by any chance?

I am not an expert in many things, but one of the things I am an expert in is the Captain Marvel comics published by Fawcett Publications from 1940-1952. I collected them obsessively for years and learned everything I could. The holy grail of the Fawcett comics collector is Whiz Comics #1 (also known as #2, but let's not worry about that now!).

In the 1970's DC Comics, having purchased the rights to the then defunct Fawcett characters, release a series of reprints, including Whiz #1. These were nearly exect reprints, except for the fact they were larger than the originals, had a different paper quality, and came inside an cardboard outer cover. The outer cover had all the info about it being a reprint; without the outer cover, the comic was and exact copy of the original. As a result, many people mistook these for originals, or deliberately remove the outer cover and passed them off as original to uneducated buyers. Value of the original, depending on condition, could be well upward of $10,000; the reprint, without the outer cover, maybe a buck.

A couple of years ago, I saw an ebay seller offering the reprint of Whiz #1 as the original. There are actually several ways to identify the reprint, the easiest being that the words "Make Way for Captain Marvel" which appeared on the original were deleted for the reprint, due to a trademark conflict with Marvel Comics. I pointed out to the seller that he was in error, offering it as an original, assuming he just didn't know. He responded with an angry tirade telling me I didn't know what I was talking about. I responded with dozens of sites documenting the differences. He responded angrily again, telling me this was a "special edition" of the original and that's why it was different. It became increasingly clear that he was either willfully ignorant, or was deliberately fraudulent. As it happened the issue was bid up to nearly $500, an absurd price for the reprint. I notified ebay, but as far as I know, they took no action.
 
Ebay just provides the sales forum - they're not taking any responsibility for the content of the sales.

I do agree that the seller should correct it if brought to his/her attention.

My thing about ebay having no responsibility is this - how are they supposed to be experts on these things? How do they know you aren't a disgruntled customer or a vindictive competitor? Just because you make a claim that the seller's ad is fraudulent, ebay shouldn't be expected to have the knowledge to validate your claim over the seller's.

Absent that level of expertise to make the judgement call, ebay shouldn't be in the business of policing their sellers' claims.
 
BTW: you would not be looking to offload a counterfeit Moore Bettah tenor, by any chance?

The guy I bought it from swore he was Chuck Moore, but now that I think about it, that mustache looked kinda glued on.... :)
 
Ebay just provides the sales forum - they're not taking any responsibility for the content of the sales.

I do agree that the seller should correct it if brought to his/her attention.

My thing about ebay having no responsibility is this - how are they supposed to be experts on these things? How do they know you aren't a disgruntled customer or a vindictive competitor? Just because you make a claim that the seller's ad is fraudulent, ebay shouldn't be expected to have the knowledge to validate your claim over the seller's.

Absent that level of expertise to make the judgement call, ebay shouldn't be in the business of policing their sellers' claims.

Good point, they do have the feedback option, but it seems they kind of discourage negative feedback. Paypal which owns Ebay or vice-versa can put a hold on the money after it is transfered if there is a dispute about the item, that seems to favor the buyer.
 
Top Bottom