• Welcome to the FREE TUGBBS forums! The absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 32 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 32 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 32nd anniversary: Happy 32nd Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    All subscribers auto-entered to win all free TUG membership giveaways!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $24,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $24 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Ebay pricing not reflective of true resale value

Status
Not open for further replies.
That why Tombo and Rick going on is so laughable because they just don't know what they're talking about often times.

Now your defensive gesticulations are just making you come across as small and petty.

I sure did know what I was talking about when I pointed out you seem to want to keep digging this hole you find yourself in.

I understand that people caught in a lie get defensive the face of all reason and sense.

I also understand that attacking those pointing out the lie is a main feature of the defensiveness.

I have seen no (none zero zip zilch) sign of remorse on your part - and that is the fact that is becoming glaringly clear.
 
Last edited:
He said he never planned on selling the week but kept advertising it anyway (fraud). If any person or business advertises something for sale at X $ even though they will not sell it at that price, that is fraud, misrepresetation, a lie, or whatever else you want to label it. It is morally wrong and not the way I treat people or expect to be treated by others.

Then when people responded to his false ads he admits here on line he lied to them when telling them why he wouldn't/couldn't sell them the advertised week. Then he raised the selling price in his ad to another price he would not sell his week for and once again told lies to buyers when they responded to his ad. Then he repeated the process again. Then he bragged on TUG about lying, fibbing, running a false ad, and more.

I think he got exactly what he deserved here on TUG.

Couldn't agree with Tombo more. To advertise an item that is not available for sale is a violation of consumer laws, at least in California. Every Saturday morning in the classified of the local newspaper certain automobile dealers have "leader" ads with an auto advertised at a good price (price lower than other comparables). Next to these ads you will see the fine print "one at this price". This is to satisfy the law to notify every customer who walks into the showroom can buy that auto unless it has already been sold. The dealer must prove the vehicle was available at the opening of business. Last year I got there a little later in the day, and although the advertised car had been sold, the dealership gave me the same lower price on a somewhat similar but higher priced car with a couple additional upgrades. That's how honest businesses operate.
 
Last edited:
Now your defensive gesticulations are just making you come across as small and petty.

I sure did know what I was talking about when I pointed out you seem to want to keep digging this hole you find yourself in.

I understand that people caught in a lie get defensive the face of all reason and sense.

I also understand that attacking those pointing out the lie is a main feature of the defensiveness.

I have seen no (none zero zip zilch) sign of remorse on your part - and that is the fact that is becoming glaringly clear.

I was simply pointing out that your rant about a civil action is absurd. Do you still stand by that position? Do you understand the basics of an offer and acceptance in law?
 
That why Tombo and Rick going on is so laughable because they just don't know what they're talking about often times.

If I somehow took advantage of those that made me an offer, then yes I would be guilty of some civil or criminal infraction but for the simple fact that I did not makes all your ranting totally baseless.

You posted that you ran an ad to sell a week for a price you would not accept to see what the week would sell for. How can that not seem wrong to you? I don't own a 1957 T-Bird. I don't know what they sell for. If I run an ad on Craigs list to sell a 1957 T-bird to see if there are any takers and keep raising the asking price until there are no takers is that simply getting an idea of the market value? Nope, that is fraud.

You posted that when people wanted to buy your week for the price you advertised it for you told them lies as to why they couldn't buy the week you advertised for sale. Why does this not seem wrong to you? You placed an ad that was a lie. When people responded to your ad you responded with lies. You justify the lies as protecting their feelings. If you hadn't run the fake ad there would be no hurt feelings to protect.

As the old adage says one lie leads to another. Now the lie becomes that you broke no law and did nothing wrong. You did several things wrong. The next lie is.......
 
I am confused what rant did I rant?
 
Couldn't agree with Tombo more. To advertise an item that is not available for sale is a violation of consumer laws, at least in California. Every Saturday morning in the classified of the local newspaper certain automobile dealers have "leader" ads with an auto advertised at a good price (price lower than other comparables). Next to these ads you will see the fine print "one at this price". This is to satisfy the law to notify every customer who walks into the showroom can buy that auto unless it has already been sold. The dealer must prove the vehicle was available at the opening of business. Last year I got there a little later in the day, and although the advertised car had been sold, the dealership gave me the same lower price on a somewhat similar but higher priced car with a couple additional upgrades. That's how honest businesses operate.

This is not even close. Another who doesn't understand the basics of an offer and acceptance, and bait and switch.
 
Well, I'm not that guy but :

The following is the full text of Section 43(a) (Section 1125 (a)) of the Lanham Act:


"Section 1125. False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden


(a) Civil action


(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—


(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or


(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.


(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.


(3) In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional."

Joe - put down the shovel and step away from the hole ....

I would classify this as a misinformaed rant.
 
Wow! Everyone must have had one hell of a bad day at the office today. It's also amazing how many lawyers we suddenly have here. I now know where to come to for free legal advice. Having read some of the links provided here, it seems that many of the laws referenced here seem to apply to "merchants", which Joe is not. Also, real estate usually has it's own set of rules and regulations.

As to the various levels of impropriety, we have laws, morality, and ethics. Apparantly, Joe has screwed the pooch on all three if the posts here are to be believed.

  1. Legality - Since Joe is not a merchant and we're talking about real estate, he may have done nothing wrong. It's not clear anyone here really knows enough to affirm illegality. If we aren't positive of such, we shouldn't acuse him of such.
  2. Ethics - this is defined as the concensus view on right and wrong, a general code of propriety in dealing with others. Clearly, the majority thinks Joe shouldn't have done what he did, so by definition, it's unethical.
  3. Morality - this is the application of ethics by an individual or group of individuals. Morals can be different for one individual or group as compared to another. In this case, Joe, and probably some others, don't see anything wrong with what he did. Therefore it's not really immoral.

For all the mud slinging, remember... "Judge not lest ye be judged." We've all done some things that we later looked back on and said, "boy, what was I thinking." I even did that twice. Ok, maybe more. In the heirachy of stupid things to do, this one is pretty benign in a shrewd sort of way. Save your wrath for when Joe starts to cheat little old ladies out of their life savings. On second thought, Joe, don't do that. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
You misguided child - quoting FEDERAL LAW is not a rant - are you on medications. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Have you ever pledged allegiance to the flag and to the republic?

If you did you also pledged allegiance to this FEDERAL LAW. :wall: :wall: :wall:
 
Wow! Everyone must have had one hell of a bad day at the office today. It's also amazing how many lawyers we suddenly have here. I now know where to come to for free legal advice. Having read some the links provided here, it seems that many of the laws referenced here seem to apply to "merchants", which Joe is not. Real estate usually has it's own set of rules and regulations.

As to the various levels of impropriety, we have laws, morality, and ethics. Apparantly, Joe has screwed the pooch on all three if the posts here are to be believed.

  1. Legality - Since Joe is not a merchant and we're talking about real estate, he may have done nothing wrong. It's not clear anyone here really knows enough to affirm illegality. If we aren't positive of such, we shouldn't acuse him of such.
  2. Ethics - this is defined as the concensus view on right and wrong, a general code of propriety in dealing with others. Clearly, the majority thinks Joe shouldn't have done what he did, so by definition, it's unethical.
  3. Morality - this is the application of ethics by an individual or group of individuals. Morals can be different for one individual or group as compared to another. In this case, Joe, and probably some others, don't see anything wrong with what he did. Therefore it's not really immoral.

For all the mud slinging, remember... "Judge not lest ye be judged." We've all done some things that we later looked back on and said, "boy, what was I thinking." I even did that twice. Ok, maybe more. In the heirachy of stupid things to do, this one is pretty benign in a shrewd sort of way. Save your wrath for when Joe starts to cheat little old ladies out of their life savings. On second thought, don't do that Joe :shrug:

I think is quite insightful and probably the best summary.

Was it illegal - ridiculous
Unethical - I can understand the argument but still don't accept
Immoral - again ridculous
 
You misguided child - quoting FEDERAL LAW is not a rant - are you on medications. :wall: :wall: :wall:

Have you ever pledged allegiance to the flag and to the republic?

If you did you also pledged allegiance to this FEDERAL LAW. :wall: :wall: :wall:

So you still think I broke a law?
 
-snip-
For all the mud slinging, remember... "Judge not lest ye be judged." We've all done some things that we later looked back on and said, "boy, what was I thinking." I even did that twice. Ok, maybe more. In the heirachy of stupid things to do, this one is pretty benign in a shrewd sort of way. Save your wrath for when Joe starts to cheat little old ladies out of their life savings. On second thought, don't do that Joe :shrug:

I agree this is pretty benign.

I also don't want Joe to get past this "entry drug" of unethical and go on to "hard core" cheating little old ladies.

I think this also doesn't reflect anything (good or bad) about eBay pricing.
 
So Tombo you rent a lot of your weeks don't you? You never left up an ad to gauge demand even though you had already rented? I know alot of renters that do that. I guess that is immoral and something you never did right?
 
So you still think I broke a law?

You child have waaaaayyy too much defensiveness to deal with.

Remind me not to do business with you and leave it at that.
 
I agree this is pretty benign.

I also don't want Joe to get past this "entry drug" of unethical and go on to "hard core" cheating little old ladies.

I think this also doesn't reflect anything (good or bad) about eBay pricing.

C'mon after all this you don't get the orignal message that Ebay is a buyer's market and redweek a sellers. Or don't you agree with that either?
 
Wow! Everyone must have had one hell of a bad day at the office today. It's also amazing how many lawyers we suddenly have here. I now know where to come to for free legal advice. Having read some of the links provided here, it seems that many of the laws referenced here seem to apply to "merchants", which Joe is not. Also, real estate usually has it's own set of rules and regulations.

He is an individual like all of us selling and buying timeshares. He is not a merchant or a real estate agent. Legal is one thing, moral is another. When I choose friends and business partners I choose people who I think I can trust, not people I have to take with a grain of salt.

After reading that he has placed ads for a week at a price he wouldn't sell the week for, his admission of lying to buyers as to why he couldn't sell them the week he advertised, and his lack of remorse in his actions would you want to buy from him or sell to him? Forget the law. Would you buy from a guy that brags about lying on ads and lying to people answering his ads? I can assure you that I wouldn't.
 
You child have waaaaayyy too much defensiveness to deal with.

Remind me not to do business with you and leave it at that.

First off I don't think my properties are your style but certainly not defensive.

I've had a big smile on my face the whole time. Did you happen to see my website? I'm the luckiest guy in the world. We're as a happy a family as we look. I could honestly care less what a few strangers think of me.

Do you care that I question your integrity because you and others spewed nasty comments over an innocent act that hurt no one. I'm sure you don't
 
So Tombo you rent a lot of your weeks don't you? You never left up an ad to gauge demand even though you had already rented? I know alot of renters that do that. I guess that is immoral and something you never did right?

As soon as I receive the money for my rental I list NEXT YEAR"S WEEK. Why do I care about this year's rental prices? My 2011 week has already rented. If I got more than anyone else would pay me in 2011, great. If I rented too cheap, oh well. Why run an ad for people to e-mail me about renting THAT HAS ALREADY RENTED? That would be like running an ad selling a week for a price I refuse to accept.
 
He is an individual like all of us selling and buying timeshares. He is not a merchant or a real estate agent. Legal is one thing, moral is another. When I choose friends and business partners I choose people who I think I can trust, not people I have to take with a grain of salt.

After reading that he has placed ads for a week at a price he wouldn't sell the week for, his admission of lying to buyers as to why he couldn't sell them the week he advertised, and his lack of remorse in his actions would you want to buy from him or sell to him? Forget the law. Would you buy from a guy that brags about lying on ads and lying to people answering his ads? I can assure you that I wouldn't.

This is good, now its "forget the law" but two minutes ago I was committing fraud.

Please tell me how you stay so pure? What's it like not to lie? I need to go to church every Sunday to ask for forgiveness of my sins but you must be able to just watch it on TV.
 
C'mon after all this you don't get the orignal message that Ebay is a buyer's market and redweek a sellers. Or don't you agree with that either?

I totally agree that eBay is the place to buy a timeshare at this time.

I have zero experience with Redweek - but apparently (according to their own admissions) some if not all sellers on Redweek practice Fibitrage.

I want no part of being "Fibitraged" so I'll stay away from that market - so then how could it be a sellers market (you know if people are staying away)?
 
Last edited:
As soon as I receive the money for my rental I list NEXT YEAR"S WEEK. Why do I care about this year's rental prices? My 2011 week has already rented. If I got more than anyone else would pay me in 2011, great. If I rented too cheap, oh well. Why run an ad for people to e-mail me about renting THAT HAS ALREADY RENTED? That would be like running an ad selling a week for a price I refuse to accept.

Maybe that's why you're having trouble renting your weeks, you don't know the market. I leave it up to gauge demand in case I want to buy an additional week.
 
damn I got to learn to type faster :hysterical:
 
Legality - Since Joe is not a merchant and we're talking about real estate, he may have done nothing wrong. It's not clear anyone here really knows enough to affirm illegality. If we aren't positive of such, we shouldn't acuse him of such.

Actually if you read the text of Section 43(a) (Section 1125 (a)) of the Lanham Act:

You will note it starts with Any person --- not any merchant.

While I am not a Federal Prosecutor - I can read and I think Joe confessed to violating the Lanham Act right here on TUG

Just saying .....
 
Actually if you read the text of Section 43(a) (Section 1125 (a)) of the Lanham Act:

You will note it starts with Any person --- not any merchant.

While I am not a Federal Prosecutor - I can read and I think Joe confessed to violating the Lanham Act right here on TUG

Just saying .....

You can read but obviously you can't understand. But you do understand I'm sure, you're just trying to maintain the controversy, which is what you do.


just saying....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top