From: schwarz-marc@cs.yale.edu (Marc Schwarz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: A postal bid system
Date: 26 Jan 1993 23:41:28 -0500
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.zoo.cs.yale.edu

kuznick@meglos.mdcorp.ksc.nasa.gov (david kuznick) writes:

> I fail to see how "Dutch Bidding" as you call it is unfair to all
> concerned.  This is the free market system!  Why should the seller get
> less than what the game could go for?  And why should someone with a
> slower net connection be penalized?

Well, for one, none of these auction agreements appear 
to be legally binding.  Briefly, in order to have a
binding contract, you need an offer, an acceptance, and
a consideration, each of which must contain certainty of
terms.

Briefly, An OFFER is a manifest intent, with certainty of 
terms,in which you place the other party on notice that you
wish to enter into a bargain.  An ACCEPTANCE is an agreement, 
with meeting of the minds, that both parties wish to enter 
a binding agreement. The CONSIDERATION is the bargain for 
the benefit. The certainty of terms include the parties, 
the date, the consideration, and conditions of transfer.  
It is mutually understood that the parties are dealing in 
good faith.

In these Dutch Auctions, not all certainty of terms conditions
are met.  Nor is it clear that the auctioneer is always dealing
in good faith.  It appears obvious that an auctioneer can easily
shill the auction.  For example, he can have friends at another
site post artificial bids.  In a real, legal auction, the certainty
of terms are presented to all prospective bidders ahead of time.
A common factor in most live (ie, non-silent) auctions is that 
an item is IMMEDIATELY sold if no new bid is received within an
understood brief amount of time.  In a real auction, you are
legally bound to transact if you purchase an item, unless you
can otherwise demonstrate either an exception (incomplete
offer, acceptance, consideration, or missing certainty of terms),
or a defense (namely, the seller cannot knowingly contract
to break the law).  If a seller sincerely believes he is selling
an authentic item, and you later learn that the item was forged,
then you are SOL unless you can demonstrate that the seller 
willfully intended to deceive the buyer.  

In these Dutch Auctions, there does not appear to be a set time
limit for either selling an item, or the termination of the auction
itself.  In a real auction, items are not added midstream, and there
is a reasonably understood beginning, middle, and end to the affair.
As far as notions of a free market system, it is understood that
bait and switch is illegal.  In these Dutch Auctions, it is possible
to manipulate the bidding in order to garner a higher priced sale.

While the Dutch Auctions are not legal, this does not imply that
they are illegal.  It simply means that the seller may have no
recourse if a potential buyer backs out.  On rec.collecting.cards,
the employed system is to sell an item immediately if it receives no
new bids for a period of three days.  For the first day, the buyer
denotes a ONCE next to the item; on the second day a twice, and on
the third day, a SOLD.  The provided certainty of terms appear to
be reasonable, such that both buyer and seller would be legally
bound to transact upon an item being denoted as SOLD.  Another 
natural solution is obvious, but requires more effort on the part
of the seller: Determine your selling price, and then accept
the first qualified and confirmed offer you receive.  As far as
getting what the game "could" go for, hey, this is a free market
system!  Take it to a REAL auction, such as Origins.  If you don't
like the high bid, then simply buy the game back (and pay the 
percentage fee to the house).  Contract law is real, and the
present system used on this group does not appear to abide by
either the notions of good faith or the notions of what defines
a binding contract.

Weasel Clause:  I am not an attorney, and thus will
make no claims to the above as being legal advice, or
legally binding, and will take no responsibility for
any party who might detrimentally rely on the above,
and that said party will assume the risk in toto.

Marc.
-=-
schwarz@cs.yale.edu
AKA schwarz@spunky.cs.nyu.edu