Downright fradulent ebay practices.

erikhaugsby

erikhaugsby

killer of threads
Local time
5:43 PM
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
1,893
Location
Innsbruck
View My Gallery
There was recently a US Government liquidation sale of a Leica KE-7A camera (Military M4) with a lens and a few accessories. It sold for $9,600 here to an unnamed bidder.

There is also currently an auction on ebay here of a Leica KE-7A. However, in the body of the description the seller admits several things, quoted:

"Fine print: I have not got it in my hands, should be in a week, I will take more pictures and more details about the condition when I get it."

"As for now, I do not know whether there is any box comes with it. I will confirm it next week; the item will be arriving in my home in about 10 days."

"I will provide a bill of sale from the government sales for the authentic proof."

and if that isn't enough,

"I may end this auction early and relist it after I get it,"

Is it even legal to sell an item you do not have in hand and possibly do not even own? What is to say that he lost the government auction but still decided to keep this ebay auction up?
The auction is to end in 9 days, 10 hours from now (June 3 at 19h); but by notint that the "item will be arriving in my home in about 10 days" he admits that he will not have it in hand until after the auction has ended!

And he is charging $150 for shipping in the contiguous US ($180 overseas), due to the "high cost of insurance."


What a sleeze.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Erik, don't get me wrong:

I am not sure I understand what is fraudulent about this and why
it annoys you. Your post however is questionable (calling somebody
fraudulent in a public medium). This is exactly how car
sales work every day ... This is a highly collectible camera (with manual, etc);
doesn't interest me as owner, BTW.

If its ethical or not is another question. But fraudulent behavior is criminally prosecutable.

Roland.
 
Last edited:
Ja, here too.

I bought my Mercedes like this: picked it from a list and the seller had
to buy it first ....

Roland.
 
Whether or not it is a fradulent listing depends on if it is covered in the ebay rules but listing something you have or will have is not fradulent unless your intentions are to defraud.

Many of the sellers who sell for others never see the item they are listing

However I would not bid on the camera unless he could prove he is the actual owner.
 
I had intended to ask for your opinions on the ethics of the sale. In retrospect I do suppose that I was incorrectly implying that the seller is fraudulent, though this was not my overall intent.

I was just irked in that he did not have the camera in his possession, and was unsure if this was a practice admissible by ebay. In the end, however, it really is the bidder's concern more than my own.

oops.
 
mpt600 said:
Why doesn't the seller wait till he receives it before selling it on ebay? Seems strange.
Click to expand...
Because he doesn't have the money to buy it first?
 
dostacos said:
I would have to say the shipping charges would be in violation of ebays terms. did you report this sale?
Click to expand...

Actually when you consider that he is including insurance in the shipping cost it may not be in violation. Remember shippers charge so much per $100 insured value. That cost could be between $1.50-$2 per $100

The PO charges I believe $1.60 per $100. If you insure a package for $10,000 that comes to $160 insurance
 
You have to hand it to the seller- he was forthright enough to admit he was selling vaporwares.
As far as I can tell, nothing is considered fraudulent on ebay, so I'll agree that the term may be inappropriate in a technical sense. If there are no enforceable rules in place, how can an auction be fraudulent?
Here's my advice- don't bid.
 
Wow! What a concept! Sell things on ebay that you don't own. Claim that you mailed the item. Ask buyer to wait a week or two. Refund the buyer the full amount plus shipping for a positive feedback. If you could do this properly with a few hundred prospective buyers you can generate a substantial capital for investment and still end up with lots of positive feedbacks. I wonder if anyone tried this yet.
 
colyn said:
Actually when you consider that he is including insurance in the shipping cost it may not be in violation. Remember shippers charge so much per $100 insured value. That cost could be between $1.50-$2 per $100

The PO charges I believe $1.60 per $100. If you insure a package for $10,000 that comes to $160 insurance
Click to expand...
The best way to ship something this expensive is Regitered Mail..you get Priority Mail service, Signiture confirmation,tracking , and insurance ...my Noctilux to NJ insured at $2500 was $20 and was received in 2 days.
 
Hey, he didn't need to say anything did he? How does anyone truly know if an item up on eBay is actually in the seller's possession. I give him at least some credit for being honest in that respect but I'm not sure why even felt the need to be so.

"As far as I can tell, nothing is considered fraudulent on ebay..."

What's that supposed to mean? Not in huge defense of eBay but they certainly DO have rules and regulations regarding fraud and although we can point out how bad fraudlent things happen on there every day (any idea how many listing go up on eBay per minute?) they do seem to take many listings down that are obvious frauds or break eBays rules. Of course they miss some, even many. But saying "nothing is considered fraudulent on ebay" is pretty ludicrous.

Besides, lots of fraud goes on every day out on the street. Better not go out. 😉
 
colyn said:
Actually when you consider that he is including insurance in the shipping cost it may not be in violation. Remember shippers charge so much per $100 insured value. That cost could be between $1.50-$2 per $100

The PO charges I believe $1.60 per $100. If you insure a package for $10,000 that comes to $160 insurance
Click to expand...
the flat fee is what I object to. If it said actual costs that would be different since it does not have a reserve that may well be at the top bid now BECAUSE of the lack of camera in hand


UPS ground from his address to mine is $88 insured at $9600
 
"I'm expecting a check in the mail. When it arrives I'll pay you. If the check doesn't arrive then resell the camera!" $11,000 sight unseen...no on site examination...object is not in possession of seller...as famous American philospher, Homer Simpson said, "Duh!"
 
Steve Bellayr said:
"I'm expecting a check in the mail. When it arrives I'll pay you. If the check doesn't arrive then resell the camera!" $11,000 sight unseen...no on site examination...object is not in possession of seller...as famous American philospher, Homer Simpson said, "Duh!"
Click to expand...

the govliqui charges 10% premium plus 6%sales tax on top of that, seller paid more than 11000 for the camera.
the govliqui will charge to the card immidiately.

the seller, must have won and paid for the camera.

I certainly do not think the seller will sell it less than that, putting shipping included.

the recent auctions shows the current value, from 11000-16000, if the seller, fortunately found the box, the camera should worth 14000 USD.

GOOD FOR HIM!


http://auction.igavel.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=628751&_UserReference=7F00000146B434661111E482565D4656E27C



http://auction.igavel.com/Bidding.taf?_function=detail&Auction_uid1=573522&_UserReference=7F00000146B434661111E482565D4656E27C
 
It seems the seller canceled the auction at about $8888.88[edit] well SOUTH of what he thought it was going to sell for. I wonder if he as actually got the camera yet
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom