Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

    LA... The problem is they chose to sell the car at auction. Auctions are what auctions are. You spin the wheel and you take the chance you'll get what you have to have.

    There is the option of a reserve price. And it's hard to argue about forgetting that little detail since you'd not only have to tick the 'reserve auction' box but also then type in what that reserve figure is. I'm not even convinced it was a mistake... reserve auctions tend to dampen bidding. For all I know they thought without a reserve they'd come out ahead but ended up getting burned much worse than they thought would be possible.

    And I don't think the dealer is really losing 20,000.00 here but I don't know. I'd think that 29,000.00 bid has to be in the same ballpark as the wholesale cost. Am I wrong in thinking the loss would be no more than about 5,000.00 from the wholesale cost?

    Auctions need to have strict rules about reserves because this is exactly the situation you don't want happening. Buyers have to be able to believe that when they are bidding in a no reserve auction, the highest bidder wins. Otherwise, it's like rewriting the contract after the negotiations are done.

    I don't know why an eBay auction wouldn't be legally binding.

    I do understand the concept of fairness and you don't want someone going bankrupt over a mistake like this... but you have to balance that with whatever the legal precedent is plus I don't think getting 29,000.00 for the car is that far off from the wholesale price... and the dealer could surely get a tax write off for losses... and might even have insurance that could cover this.
    Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
      Precedence has not been set unless a COURT has said that the auto belongs in the hands of the bidder. Otherwise, this could just be a case of jumping off of a cliff because your friends are doing it.

      On another level, there's just a little bit of "STICKIN' IT TO THE MAN" going on here that makes it a little distasteful. While a lot of money goes through dealerships, they aren't exactly Bill Gates level rich cats.

      As a business owner, I would like to occasionally be given an opportunity to come to some middle ground on a handshake deal before thousands of people (largely uninformed and biased people who have only heard one side) start some kind of campaign.

      Everyone knows that this is not the price of that car. That's why this bidder is SO excited. He thinks he can take advantage of someone's mistake and screw them over it. If this weren't "little guy vs. big guy" how would you feel about this mistake turning into some kind of robbery of $20,000?

      Imagine your grandma has a guy come to fix the plumbing and he sees a guitar in the basement. He knows what it is and what it's worth. But grandma tells him "I suppose you can have that old guitar for $50." While he runs off to get $50, you come over. She tells you the story about how she's selling granddad's guitar for $50. This is where you tell her that granddad's guitar is worth at least $5000 and she can't sell it for less.

      Now the guy comes over with $50. You tell him to go away, the guitar's not for sale anymore. He becomes belligerent and calls everyone around town telling him that "Haddie May Jones Cannot Be TRUSTED!!!"

      Who's the jerk here?

      Now, don't get upset at me for bringing an extreme example into this. I know that the stories aren't parallel. But I can't escape the notion that everybody thinks that because the dealership made a mistake, they should hand the guy twenty grand. no mistake is worth that in anything other than attorney's fees.

      The "little guy" is just as capable of immoral behavior as the "big guy".

      Canceling an auction sounds like a lesser sin than robbing someone of $20,000.

      Actually, I think you do have the wrong take on it. That story you cited follows all of the wrong logic; flawed logic leads to invalid conclusions. This isn't innocent granny who didn't know how much the car was worth; it's a 5 star dealership who sells a plethora of SRT8s and knows exactly how much they cost.

      The guy has been civil all the way throughout the process and followed what he was supposed to do. He's tried to pay the deposit; they refused. He called them and talked to them over the phone; they refused. He's visited in person multiple times and has tried to pay with all the funds; he has been refused.

      He can't help it that the dealership screwed the pooch on their end. You realize that if this occurred in the opposite situation, the dealership would be after the guy for all the funds...

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

        Originally posted by Bball View Post
        LA... The problem is they chose to sell the car at auction. Auctions are what auctions are. You spin the wheel and you take the chance you'll get what you have to have.

        There is the option of a reserve price. And it's hard to argue about forgetting that little detail since you'd not only have to tick the 'reserve auction' box but also then type in what that reserve figure is. I'm not even convinced it was a mistake... reserve auctions tend to dampen bidding. For all I know they thought without a reserve they'd come out ahead but ended up getting burned much worse than they thought would be possible.

        And I don't think the dealer is really losing 20,000.00 here but I don't know. I'd think that 29,000.00 bid has to be in the same ballpark as the wholesale cost. Am I wrong in thinking the loss would be no more than about 5,000.00 from the wholesale cost?

        Auctions need to have strict rules about reserves because this is exactly the situation you don't want happening. Buyers have to be able to believe that when they are bidding in a no reserve auction, the highest bidder wins. Otherwise, it's like rewriting the contract after the negotiations are done.

        I don't know why an eBay auction wouldn't be legally binding.

        I do understand the concept of fairness and you don't want someone going bankrupt over a mistake like this... but you have to balance that with whatever the legal precedent is plus I don't think getting 29,000.00 for the car is that far off from the wholesale price... and the dealer could surely get a tax write off for losses... and might even have insurance that could cover this.
        You are correct. $29,000 is not that far off of the true cost.

        And you also "get" it....

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

          Who here thinks the dealership would be cutting the guy a break if had made a mistake and accidentally bid 92.1k instead o 29.1k? Yeah, me neither.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

            I read somewhere that it costs $15k to make a Cadillac Escalade yet they sell for $55k so I would think making a Challenger would be a bit less although I don't know the true cost of the engine.

            "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

              I'm trying to catch up on this since I've missed a lot since it was first posted.

              Does the guy STILL not have an attorney?

              On day 1 I might understand that, by day two I think I'm meeting my atty at the dealership as I attempt to pay for the car.

              By day 3 the legal papers are filed.
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                Originally posted by travmil View Post
                Who here thinks the dealership would be cutting the guy a break if had made a mistake and accidentally bid 92.1k instead o 29.1k? Yeah, me neither.
                Dingdingding. We have a winner.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                  Originally posted by travmil View Post
                  Who here thinks the dealership would be cutting the guy a break if had made a mistake and accidentally bid 92.1k instead o 29.1k? Yeah, me neither.
                  I agree with your point... but realistically that situation would be hard to happen. While 92.1K would be his MAX bid, the way eBay works his bid would only be 1 increment higher than the previous bidder.

                  Someone else would have to bid 92,099.00 to actually cause his bid to bump up to 92.1K.

                  IOW... he could've bid a max bid of 92.1K right now and his actual winning bid would be exactly what it is right now.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                    Originally posted by DGPR View Post
                    I read somewhere that it costs $15k to make a Cadillac Escalade yet they sell for $55k so I would think making a Challenger would be a bit less although I don't know the true cost of the engine.
                    You need to look up this. That's likely cost of materials.
                    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                      Solid points, everyone.
                      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                        http://jalopnik.com/5494837/did-chal...-pricing-error
                        Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                        ------

                        "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                          Originally posted by Bball View Post
                          I'm trying to catch up on this since I've missed a lot since it was first posted.

                          Does the guy STILL not have an attorney?

                          On day 1 I might understand that, by day two I think I'm meeting my atty at the dealership as I attempt to pay for the car.

                          By day 3 the legal papers are filed.
                          I registered at that forum just so I could search the forums. Yes he has spoken to an attorney. First they tried to pull the "we didn't receive the deposit" card. In one if his posts he says he paid the deposit. He attempted to get the car yesterday. He had a certified check in hand for the full amount of the winning bid and all fees and they refused to accept the payment in front of a witness. As of now he has complied with everything on his end, and the dealer is in breach of contract. He has not made an updated post since yesterday.
                          Last edited by travmil; 03-18-2010, 11:17 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                            I don't buy the E-bay excuss that the reserve disappeared mysteriously, but that will probably work. How can they prove it one way or the other? There should be a record in the system of the listing and changes made, shouldn't there? And why am i answering my own question with a question?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                              Originally posted by SycamoreKen View Post
                              I don't buy the E-bay excuss that the reserve disappeared mysteriously, but that will probably work. How can they prove it one way or the other? There should be a record in the system of the listing and changes made, shouldn't there? And why am i answering my own question with a question?
                              There is a record and anyone can see it. You can go to the listing and click the 'revisions' link to see the changes. The buy it now price was changed and 45 seconds later (I didn't do the math myself I'm just repeating the time someone else said) the reserve was changed.

                              I'd like to know their eBay history. Have they ran 'no reserve' auctions in the past (I've seen in the forum people saying they have but I've not really seen an official confirmation of that)? Have they ran auctions and removed the 'reserve' during the auction's run?

                              You'd think if eBay's software sometimes glitched and removed a 'reserve' from an auction that there would be some hue and cry from users. I've never heard a word about it before.

                              I'm still not convinced they didn't remove the reserve to stoke the bids and it backfired but if the software did glitch then it seems to me the dealer should honor the deal for business reasons and eBay should be liable for damages (to the dealer) for legal reason.

                              I still say eBay is Teflon. When it comes to someone that needs it stuck to them, I'm pretty biased against eBay these days!
                              Last edited by Bball; 03-18-2010, 01:21 PM.
                              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                              ------

                              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                              -John Wooden

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: EBay - Man wins bid on Challenger; Dealer refuses to pay up for their mistake...

                                Just so everyone knows what's up - here's this article in its entirety.

                                Did Challenger SRT8 Auction Expose eBay Reserve Pricing Error?
                                Two days ago we told you about a ChallengerTalk forumite who may have been getting screwed by a dealer on a cheap eBay'd 2009 Dodge Challenger SRT8. The dealer claims an eBay malfunction caused the cheap deal. Here's what happened.

                                Alex has been perusing the lots of Glenn E. Thomas Dodge Chrysler Jeep for months lusting after the Challenger SRT8 and was considering a Plum Crazy Purple model. Problem is, the cars were sold out and he was reluctant to order one. Time goes by, he builds rapport with one of the salesman named Brad Davis who, being a good salesman, did his best to get him into something, including a B5 Blue 2009 Challenger SRT8 with a manual. Alex sat in the car, and felt it out, but no deal, it had to be Plum Crazy, so he waited.

                                He waited until last Friday that is, when he spotted the same blue car on eBay and it happened to be missing its reserve. He placed a bid of $29,100 on the car not thinking he'd have a rat's chance at a snake convention. The salesman got an email from eBay saying there was a bid on a car and he fired off an email to Alex thanking him for the bid and encouraging him to come down to the dealer and consider making a deal that day. He probably should have been singing a different tune though, because he didn't know there was a problem with the listing.

                                Prior to that day, the car had been priced higher, but Brad went into the listing and lowered the "Buy it Now" price of $43,400 with a reserve of $42,995 on the last day of the auction hoping to lure in more bidders. Unfortunately the reserve disappeared and they didn't realize it. Then the auction ended and Alex had won a $43,000+ Challenger for $29,100, a crushing deal. Nearly immediately Brad fired off an email to Alex stating "Somehow the reserve got taken out of this Challenger. It should have had the buy it now price on it with the reserve of $43,425."

                                The bottom of the listing state terms and conditions very clearly:

                                Deposit: Deposit of $500 must be paid within 24 hours of auction close. Payment: Items will not be available for pickup or shipping until full payment is received and cleared by our local bank. Buyer has 5 days to pay. Warranty: Equipment is covered by manufacturers warranty only. Return Policy: If you are not satisfied with your equipment upon delivery, please notify us immediately. Availability: We reserve the right to remove this listing due to on-site sales.

                                Disclaimer: This auction is a legally binding contract to buy this vehicle. All vehicles are sold as-is unless otherwise specified. I have done my best to accurately describe this vehicle. It is up to the buyer to come see and further inspect the car before the end of the auction.


                                When the auction ended Alex received an email from the eBay system informing him he'd won and was now obligated to provide the $500 deposit within 24 hours. He made an attempt to transfer the deposit via Paypal but was informed the account was incapable of taking payments. Frustrated, Alex emailed Brad a .pdf copy of the listing and said he'd be happy to pay the $500 deposit immediately as long as they'd tell him the preferred payment method. Nobody returned Alex's emails the rest of that Friday.

                                Saturday was a flurry of activity with Alex getting on the horn with the dealership attempting to get his deal, relying on the fact that he had what seemed an ironclad case. Trouble is the dealer wouldn't direct him on how they'd take payment on the deposit, they also sent a request on eBay to cancel the transaction. He was informed the car would not be sold at that price as it was worth much more, but they'd be happy to offer him discounts on other Challengers.

                                We spoke with Brad and another salesman confusingly named John Davis who've both been involved with Alex and this car in particular. Both say they don't understand how the problem with the reserve price happened. Their dealership isn't exactly new to eBay, with around 218 listings on the site, but somehow the reserve disappeared when the price was lowered. They've actually called up their eBay representative Chris Brown, who has not yet answered our calls, to find out what had happened. Hanson reportedly responded with "sometimes this happens." Being seasoned veterans of eBay Motors ourselves we're not at all satisfied with this response if it's in fact what was said. This doesn't mean someone at Glenn E Thomas didn't fat-finger the reserve away, but there's possibly another avenue of fault.

                                "I don't think we should be 100% accountable for a mistake that may have been eBay's fault. We've been around for 100 years and customer service is our highest priority and I'm willing to take a loss on a car, but to a point," said John Davis. He went on to say "I talked with Alex to try to get to a price that would be hurting us but still give him a substantial deal, better than anyone anywhere could ever get on a Challenger, but I guess we're at an impasse."

                                Is eBay's system flawed? Or is this a case of someone just having a bad day, keying in the wrong pricing and trying to find a way to pin the blame elsewhere? While we haven't spoken with Mr. Hanson, we have spoken with others at eBay, who tell us they're hunting down the details of the auction. We'll find out more sometime later today.

                                So where does that leave them? Alex has a lowball bid on a lovely blue Challenger and what sounds like a pretty legally binding disclaimer in the listing. What he doesn't have is the deposit on the car delivered within the 24 hour window mandated by that same contract because the dealer more or less wouldn't accept the deposit. The dealer is looking at a huge loss on a money-making car because of what they claim was a system malfunction at eBay. They've already offered Alex sweetheart deals on Challengers to no avail, the man wants his car and he wants it cheap, rightly so. Neither side wants to get lawsuit-happy and both sides are being cordial and talking with us (some dealerships should take note — this is the right way to deal with customer service issues). We guess we'll have to wait and hear what eBay has to say later today.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X