A
aurora77
Guest
Is there a smilie for “I’m a dork?” lol.
Thanks!
- Status
Thanks!
L
lak611
Guest
This would not be an issue if the seller set a low starting bid with no reserve. It would be the bidders who force up the price, not the seller. With a low starting bid and no reserve, the seller could actually lose money, if he paid $250 and the highest bid was lower than that.
J
JesusSaves17
Guest
but there is still the chance the seller will be taking more money from someone than it’s actually worth…yes the demand might be that great, but the going rate for said football ticket I could’ve sold was well over 400 bucks to this game. 350 would’ve been a “good” deal for some…But I don’t see how that makes it just to sell for 350, regardless of how high some buyers will go. If anything in this situation, it’s taking advantage of a person who is clueless that they could go to the store or order one online for less than what they’d pay on ebay. That in itself is un-Christian I think to deceive people. It’s shady business-man tactics.
M
maize
Guest
i think its more dishonest that some people charge an almost equal amount for shipping an item that clearly doesn’t cost that much to ship in order to pad out the final sale price and make a profit without having to give ebay a cut.
(a fine run on sentence, i must say)
(a fine run on sentence, i must say)
T
twf
Guest
If this is immoral than ANY business, service, or store in the world that sells ANYTHING for slightly more than any other similar business, service, or store is immoral. If this is illicit our entire society would collapse.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
The seller would still be taking advantage of the ignorance of others, where others includes not only the final bidder but the other bidders who caused the price to rise.
T
twf
Guest
Just Lurking:
$350 is not an unreasonable price for the product. It is not being “jacked up”. If the consumer wants to shop around and find a better price that is his/her right. If, however, the consumer is willing to pay the full price, why not?
$350 is not an unreasonable price for the product. It is not being “jacked up”. If the consumer wants to shop around and find a better price that is his/her right. If, however, the consumer is willing to pay the full price, why not?
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
ok, how about a compromise. I could list it with a Buy it Now price of about $300. So I would still be making a profit, and the buyer would still be paying less than from other retailers.
M
maize
Guest
seems like a pain in the rear for 50 bucks.
what if it doesnt sell for some reason, if you keep listing your profit keeps going down.
what if it doesnt sell for some reason, if you keep listing your profit keeps going down.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
If the consumer is making an informed decision to pay more, i.e., if the eBay listing stated that the same product was available elsewhere for less, then I agree.
However, if the consumer is paying more out of ignorance which the seller could alleviate, but chooses not to in order to make a greater profit than otherwise, then this would seem to go squarely against the Catechism.
L
lak611
Guest
It is not the seller’s fault if he starts the bid at $1 with no reserve. He cannot be responsible for stupid bidders.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
If he consciously works to keep the bidders ignorant, by deliberately choosing not to inform them of information which would make them less ignorant, then I don’t see why he doesn’t share in the responsibility.
If the bidders are truly stupid, then they will still pay extra even after being informed of the lower price at Circuit City. However, if the buyers are not stupid, but merely ignorant, I can see no purpose in calling them “stupid” other than to assuage one’s guilt at taking advantage of them.
In any event, the Catechism makes no allowance for taking advantage of ignorant buyers because of who is responsible for their ignorance.
C
Caesar517
Guest
It is immoral to purposely work to hide important information from them, or lie to them. It is not immoral to sell something above market price. Do you think all stores must provide you with the prices of their items at other stores around the country?
If he sells something on eBay without impeding the ability of the buyers to do their own research, then he is doing nothing wrong.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Agreed.
Agreed.
Stores and businesses are required to follow moral principles as well as individuals. In fact, the moral obligations imposed on businesses from chapter 7 of the Compendium of Social Justice (see here) seem to me to be greater than those imposed upon individuals. But as to your specific question, I don’t know why anyone buying a loaf of bread in a grocery store would care about the price of that bread halfway across the country.
Again, I note that the Catechism does not provide any kind of “escape clause” for those who seek to profit by taking advantage of the ignorance of others, regardless of the source or vincibility of that ignorance.
C
Caesar517
Guest
What about the one across the street?
Selling a Wii for $350 is not taking advantage of the ignorance of others.
If I were to sell a Wii for $800 when I led the buyer to believe that $800 was a bargain, then I would be sinning. If he told me that he was wiling to pay $800 for a quick and convinent purchase before I said anything to him, then I have no reason to doubt his knowledge. If, however, I had a strong suspicion that he was ignorant of it’s market value (perhaps he seemed eager at the deal, or generally just gave me that impression), then I would be obligated to make sure I wasn’t taking advantage of him.
I don’t think it is even possible for a buyer on eBay to be ignorant of market price. Go to eBay and search for something, you will find many many results with which to compare prices.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
If a customer asked if bread was cheaper across the street, and the store manager knew that it was, I think the manager would be morally obligated to inform the customer of this fact.
Then why not remove all doubt by stating in the eBay ad that the Wii can be obtained for $250 elsewhere. This way, the seller can have a perfectly clear conscience.
C
Caesar517
Guest
I agree. To tell him otherwise would be a lie. If the customer did not ask and the seller has no reason to believe that the customer is ignorant of the market value, then the seller is under no obligation to inform the buyer where he can get a better deal – that’s not good business sense.
A scrupulous person may have a more clear consciense, but the person would be out $350. There is nothing stopping an eBay buyer from researching an item’s market value and no reason to believe the buyer is ignorant of it’s market value by default.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
If the deal falls through because of the additional information, then that is undeniable proof that it was taking advantage of the buyer’s ignorance.
C
Caesar517
Guest
The seller on eBay can get more money for a good than a store selling the good directly can. The difference is convenience. It is much more convenient to purchase something on eBay and have it shipped to you than it is to visit a store and buy something. That extra convenience is reflected in the price (that’s how Wal-Mart works). By doing the buyer’s research for him, you are removing that convenience (part of your product, if you want to think of it that way). That’s why you might be out of a deal; not because you were taking advantage of someone.
P
PeteZaHut
Guest
There is reason to believe that the buyer is ignorant of its market value. What rational person would buy an item for above market value price if he was aware of the market value price?
- Status