Incredible! Stupidity Has No Limits!

Actually, on ebay the seller has to warrant that the coin is genuine and if the buyer pays buy PayPal then they are supposed to be protected from such shenanigans.

quote:

---

So if it turns out to be a fake, and the buyer files an "Item Not as Described" claim with E-bay, will the buyer win?

---

I would think so. As has been mentioned, this auction clearly violates ebay's required certification of genuineness by the seller.

I do not disagree that the seller knows better, and swallowed a healthy portion of his morals before posting the auction. However, there were plenty of flags in there to alert all but the most unobservant of bidders. Checking into the bidding, I saw the winner seems to be one of the unobservant types. The underbidder is very likely a greedy type, based on his fairly large feedback and long tenure.

And Dave Osborne based his character on me.

Even if the seller had placed a disclaimer, the offer for sale was for an item described as genuine per the ebay user agreement. Regardless of what the seller thought about the coin, the "click" made to list the item explicitly asks if the coin is genuine. In the case of a discrepancy, I believe the onus would be on the seller to right the wrong either by refunding the buyer's money or providing a genuine 1804 dollar.

Houston Guy, I did not know that there were replicas listed right next to this listing. Now, that makes me very curious about the bidders. I have heard it said here that lots of bids bring lots of bidders. What are the chances that these were shill bidders? Would make this whole thing make a lot more sense.
Jim

I hope I'm not beating this to death; but it is an interesting question. I think Houston_guy is incorrect that this seller's actions would not constitutute common law fraud. All the elements are easily met: (a) a representation (b) false (c) having to do with past or presnt fact (d) that is material, and (d) that the representor knew to be false and asserted the fact without knowledge whether it was true with intent to induce the other person to act.

It does not matter that there were several replicas listed next to this listing: they were clearly labeled as copies or replicas. This one wasn't. In fact it was advertised as a 1804 silver dollar. That is a factual representation. Later, in response to questions, the seller admits he does not know if his original assertion is true. He does not correct it however. He holds out the possibility that the buyer will get an actual 1804 silver dollar. He is counting on the possibility that there are naive, clueless, gullible and, yes, greedy people out there who will be sloppy in their DD and buy this coin. These are usually just the kind of people our laws are designed to protect. It should be highly probative that several honest sellers labeled their copies and replicas clearly as such, while this seller didn't.

This seller would likely mount the affirmative defense that he wasn't really representing this to be an actual 1804 silver dollar or a copy - just a coin of uncertain origin that may or may not be real. A lottery ticket so to speak. I think it's a close call but should come down to intent. This guy had an intent to take someone's money thru deception.

As to the affirmative defense that no reasonable person could have justifiable reliance on the seller's representations - that'll just do more harm than good. You mean you represented this to be an 1804 silver dollar knowing that no reasonable person could take that claim seriously? Not a very good defense, IMHO.

Also alot depends on if the seller will give the buyer's money back. If he does, then there's no case obviously.

I once bought a Panda on E-bay that was represented to be genuine, but I got e-mails from some other buyers who said theirs was counterfeit. So I checked some pictures of real Pandas and found that mine was a counterfeit. I e-mailed the seller who said he was sorry. He said he sold them in good faith as real and had no intent to deceive anyone, and gave me my money back.

chasinva69-

Very good. In some jurisdictions "justifiable reliance" (or lack thereof) is an affirmative defense. In others (like Texas), it is an element of the plaintiff's case; that is, the plaintiff must plead and prove his reliance on the false representation was justified. The seller lives in Washington state. I know that both Washington and Texas have a Consumer Protection statute which covers this kind of deceptive trade practice. In Texas, the deceived consumer can get triple damages.
[Chapter 17, Texas Business and Commerce Coide].