 | | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
|
(...) I'll have to dig up the article in our paper. I'm not sure who they were actually using for source material. The article seemed serious, and it seemed like it was researched and not just someone rambling. (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
|
(...) The difference is that eBay (unlike a caller) isn't doing any flogging/promotion for the item. That's my main point. eBay provides an interface, but that's it. My other point (only implied, mostly) is that eBay will (IMHO) promote the idea (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
|
(...) Hmm. I hadn't been arguing this in a legal sense, actually. Legally I haven't a clue who's doing what. :) My main reason for thinking the auctioneer is the seller is that all eBay provides is an interface between buyers and sellers. Any (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
|
(...) But isn't that analogous to real-world auction houses? They typically aren't actually auctioning anything either, just providing a venue and a caller (didn't want to call them auctioneers to avoid term confusion) in exchange for a percentage (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
| |
| | Re: States Go After Online Auctions; $1000 fines
|
|
(...) Sorry to jump in... just putting in $.02-- I'm of the mind to think that legally, it could be arguable that ebay is doing the actual auctioning... I think the best argument is the one previously presented: how is it different from hiring a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.auction)
|
