Ebay pricing not reflective of true resale value

[stevedmatt]

To change the price after a buyer agrees to buy it is called "bait and switch".

Bait and switch is when you tell them the lower priced item is sold and try to sell them a higher price item.

Does everyone remember the middle of the real estate boom? I know many houses where asking price bids were declined and houses sold for thousands above asking price. Is that bait and switch? in fact, I currently live in was one. My asking price bid was declined and I paid over asking price for this house.

While many would consider it sellers remorse, it is far from a crime to not sell property to someone when they are willing to pay advertised price. If there was a contract in place, I would agree that there is legal ramifications.

I do think it is somewhat immoral, but Joe doesn't deserve the barrage he has been handed here.

 

[tombo]

Bait and switch is when you tell them the lower priced item is sold and try to sell them a higher price item.

Definition of "switch and bait":
A deceptive sales technique that involves advertising a low-priced item to attract customers to a store, then persuading them to buy more expensive goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the advertised item on hand or by disparaging its quality.

This practice is illegal in many states under their Consumer Protection laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bait+and+Switch


He did just that. When they called to buy his week for his low price he as he said fibbed, lied, or best of all told them a story to save their feelings. He advertised it low but when people wanted to buy at that price he said it was sold, etc, and raised the price. That is bait and switch using a low price to get interest in his week and then persuading someone to buy the same week for 1000's more.

 

[ampaholic]

Fibitrage

In economics and finance, fibitrage (IPA: /ˈfibɨtrɑːʒ/) is the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets by fibbing to buyers until one of them agrees to pay a higher price than originally advertised for(to spare their feelings of course): the profit being the difference between the market prices.

:hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:

I also think the OP's original premise is well and properly sunk.

 

[tombo]

I do think it is somewhat immoral, but Joe doesn't deserve the barrage he has been handed here.

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.

 

[kaio]

I briefly read this thread, and I actually enjoy reading the user's posts that I am quoting... My only .02 cents would be that Market Value is ever-changing and can only be compiled in the mind with consistent up-to-date knowledge and resources~for example, simple economics~supply and demand ~who the distributor is and how their willing to price it. I'd like to think (just going to say "an entity" or "said person" was responsible for crashing many particular markets in the timeshare industry over the past 2 years... Not like I would fight my point as their is no facts or documentation to show, nor does it matter in general... but I consistently and truly believe some entities crashed certain markets such as the Vacation Internationale timeshare resale market upon many others. Obviously, there are a lot of trade secrets and insides, and I cannot disclose to how said person was able to do such a thing... but birdseye view: If an entity had hundreds of V.I. ownerships and regardless of their actual "market value" at the time, flooded certain online markets with them all at once (or within a few months time span), and gave away several years of free points for every ownership.... and you may ask why... but just imagine it is because supply gets so big, you need to raise demand.... and that someone needs to move them quick as with anything you don't want to hold onto. With V.I. points, if there are several past year allocations in the account, why not give them all away (rather than struggle to get reimbursed Maintenance Fees from those years) as they are going to transfer with the ownership anyway.... and to top it off, if said person had hundreds of V.I., they are not necessarily looking for profit from the sale to the new owner, they are looking to transition them quickly to new owners, and all must be practically similar in price or practically FREE in otherwords for them to all move quickly.... Market Value is completely disregarded, and in turn, said person is crashing the market value. After hundreds of V.I ownerships are marketed with Free Past Years Points, and Free Closing and Transferring Costs... Soon enough, few people who saw the market get flooded are going to be interested in such a V.I. ownership that isn't pracitically Free, regardless of the current market value... and that crash in the V.I. Market will stay that way well after the hundreds of low-cost marketed V.I. ownerships are gone. I am not sure how it is today, but I bet there are many people who like V.I. ownerships and think they are very valuable but still won't even be interested until they see them practically Free with previous Years Points for Free, due to said person's actions with having a large supply and little demand at what the market value might have perspectively been to the average end owner.

Ah, sorry for the rant, I typed this quick and do not have time to re-read, but I hope whatever my .02 cents is worth, someone understood what I meant. Market Value fluctuates with variables other than the actual ownership at hand if that makes sense... **in some scenerios** obviously cannot compare apples to oranges or V.I. Points to Worldmark Points, but anyway....

Far as I know, eBay is the closest thing to a buy-sell clearinghouse for timeshare resales, notwithstanding the existence of other brick-&-mortar & virtual buy-sell venues (RedWeek, etc. & Orlando & Massanutten & Gatlinburg storefronts, etc.).

"Market value" for timeshares, if such a thing could be determined, would be an up-to-date average of all current & recent completed sale prices -- all of'm, including storefront sales & RedWeek, etc., not just eBay.

Trouble is, nobody compiles comprehensive information like that. Closest thing to it for ready reference is eBay, although by me eBay prices can be regarded mainly as benchmark values & not strictly as the true "market" price (because big & well known as it is, eBay is not the entire market, just the market of choice for savvy buyers).

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[ondeadlin]

Ah but even today there are those in those barracks and in timeshares who bemoan the loss of the "good old days" when donuts were only 10 cents each, RCI took in hot dog time and gave out steak time to all and timeshare fees were under $300. almost everywhere.

Good stuff.

 

[MOXJO7282]

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.

Why is it the most self righteous have the most venom. Please look up the definition of fraud and come back with your jaded veiw and explain how I committed it.

Did I lie to a stranger to spare them, yes, take to the shed and shoot me.


Tombo you're probably the type that would tell the truth to someone even if it caused them harm, because "You never tell a lie. right?"

 

[ondeadlin]

Joe has not committed a crime and won't go jail. But he has committed "fraudulent misrepresentation" (black's law dictnry). He offered a product for sale, his offer was accepted, and then he intentionally misrepresented the terms of his offer which resulted in a failure to complete the transaction.

While I completely disagree with what Joe did, this is not accurate.

Except in very few cases, the law does not consider an advertisement a binding offer.

In this case, the person answering the advertisement would be considered to be making an offer. Joe is then able to accept or decline. Alternatively, there'd be a Statute of Frauds issue because it's real property (officially moved into legal nerd territory with that one).

 

[MOXJO7282]

Definition of "switch and bait":
A deceptive sales technique that involves advertising a low-priced item to attract customers to a store, then persuading them to buy more expensive goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the advertised item on hand or by disparaging its quality.

This practice is illegal in many states under their Consumer Protection laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bait+and+Switch


He did just that. When they called to buy his week for his low price he as he said fibbed, lied, or best of all told them a story to save their feelings. He advertised it low but when people wanted to buy at that price he said it was sold, etc, and raised the price. That is bait and switch using a low price to get interest in his week and then persuading someone to buy the same week for 1000's more.

I love how you twist definitons to fit your crazy logic.

 

[MOXJO7282]

Where's the guy who said I can be sued in civil court I want to hear more from that guy.

 

[ondeadlin]

Joe,

You keep trying to use language to justify lying (I did it for my kids, I did it to spare the buyer, etc.). On some level, that tells me you understand what you did is wrong. I hope that means you won't do it again.

Your actions are the sort of thing that we here at TUG would absolutely be killing a developer or a timeshare reseller for if they were doing it.

Some folks are willing to let it slide, basically because you're one of us. But there's just no way to spin a series of lies as something to brag about or be proud of. Dishonesty isn't cool, whether it's by an individual or a timeshare salesman.

 

[ampaholic]

Joe,

You keep trying to use language to justify lying (I did it for my kids, I did it to spare the buyer, etc.). On some level, that tells me you understand what you did is wrong. I hope that means you won't do it again.

Your actions are the sort of thing that we here at TUG would absolutely be killing a developer or a timeshare reseller for if they were doing it.

Some folks are willing to let it slide, basically because you're one of us. But there's just no way to spin a series of lies as something to brag about or be proud of. Dishonesty isn't cool, whether it's by an individual or a timeshare salesman.

Game, set and match ...

Joe - stop digging ....

 

[tombo]

Why is it the most self righteous have the most venom. Please look up the definition of fraud and come back with your jaded veiw and explain how I committed it.

Did I lie to a stranger to spare them, yes, take to the shed and shoot me.


Tombo you're probably the type that would tell the truth to someone even if it caused them harm, because "You never tell a lie. right?"

You ran ads for a week at a price you would not actually sell the week for. The ad was fraudulent. It was stated that week x at resort XYZ is for sale for $xxxx. In reality you would (from your posts) never sell the week for the price YOU LISTED IN THE AD. Then when you won't sell the week to the buyer for the price you advertised it for YOU TELL THEM A LIE rather than the truth which is that you ran the ad knowing you wouldn't sell your week for that price. You now feel that you are doing the buyer a favor by lying to them?

How noble. Which lie is the best for the customer's feelings? The lie you posted as a sale price in a false ad or the lie you told to explain why they weren't going to be able to buy the week they wanted to buy for the advertised price?

How about New York City's view of false advertising and bait and switch tactics. Perhaps those will be an acceptable view on the subject.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/Advertising.pdf

From the New York City Consumer Affairs list of what constitutes false advertising:

"Any PRICE QUOTED in an ad must match the actual purchase price."

You refused to sell the week for YOUR ADVERTISED PRICE. That is false advertising pure and simple.

From the same article regarding Bait and Switch:
"Advertising an item that the vendor knows will not be available at the promised
price."

"The salesperson refuses to show, display, offer or sell an advertised item on
the terms of the ad."


When a buyer decides to buy your week for the price you advertised, you REFUSE TO SELL IT TO THEM FOR THAT PRICE. Then to top it off you lie to them to spare their feelings. Give me a break. You lie to them to spare the dog cussing you would receive if you actually told them the truth that you ran the ad but were NEVER going to sell it for the price you listed it for.

 

[Ridewithme38]

Aww give the guy a break! Its not easy to the unfront fee scam when your selling your TS...this is the best he could get away with!

 

[ampaholic]

Aww give the guy a break! Its not easy to the unfront fee scam when your selling your TS...this is the best he could get away with!

:hysterical: :rofl: :hysterical:

I've told him twice to stop digging ... but he keeps asking for a new shovel ... what are you going to do.

 

[ampaholic]

Where's the guy who said I can be sued in civil court I want to hear more from that guy.

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 ....

 

[timeos2]

Did you even read the article that you included?? No where does it say or imply car titles "are magically "cleansed" through multiple state registrations to gain much higher, non-damaged pricing".

If you would have read the article you might have seen the paragraph about "Check the actual title or pink slip. State departments of motor vehicle (DMV) issue “salvage” titles when a vehicle was been an insurance write-off or total loss. This is when the amount of damage exceeds the vehicle’s actual value. Some people buy these “wrecks,” fix them up, and offer them for sale." While maybe the wrong car for you, the sale of a salvage title vehicle is legal.

Please don't start misleading people with bad information on automotive topics - stick to TS info where you've been providing that information for years.

OK- I may have had the wrong link before - Here is a clip from the FULL REPORT HERE:

START CLIP:
How "Title Washing" Works

How does the thief remove the brand from the title that was issued by the insurance company?

When an insurance company labels a car "totaled" as a flood victim, the title is branded as a flood loss. (If the car is totaled due to a wreck, a salvage title is issued.) The original owner is paid for the loss and the car now becomes the property of the insurance company. It is taken to an insurance auction to be sold to the highest bidder.

Chop shops and unscrupulous rebuilders with the intent to restore the vehicle as cheap as possible and sell it at auction buy the flood vehicle at the auction and rebuild the car to running condition. Next, they run the vehicle over state lines and re-register the vehicle as they go. Sometimes they assign a new VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) to the vehicle. As the vehicle is re-registered over and over, eventually the insurance brand is removed or "washed" clean from the title, hence the term "Title Washing." Once a clean title is issued, the thieves either feed the vehicle back into the auction circuit or sell it outright at a big profit without disclosure.

It gets worse. When they sell it at auction, they will bring along co-bidders to bid against other dealers (both present and online) to drive up the price of the vehicle. The rebuilt clean-titled flood victim is sold at a premium wholesale price (much higher than the thief invested in cost factor and labor), takes it across the country to your local car dealer. You buy the car and in doing so, inherit a laundry list of problems that will come to fruition over time much like a time bomb ticking away ... tick tock tick tock ...

Does this really happen?

Yes. I remember when a batch of title washed vehicles made it into the Buffalo, N.Y., market back in 1993. The Mississippi River was the culprit again, swelling its banks and, like recently, many cars were lost. A large number of them ended up in the Northeast through the auction circuit where they were purchased by dealers and sold to unsuspecting customers. About three months later, these vehicles started dropping like dead flies on the roadways. The investigation uncovered the source of these vehicles -- the Mississippi River flood. They had been rebuilt, titles washed and sold to the highest bidder.

Bottom Line:

To protect yourself from buying a flood victim, rebuilt wreck, rebuilt stolen vehicle, or a salvage vehicle make sure you have a pre-purchase vehicle inspection done by a trusted repair shop and conduct a title history report through a reputable company such as CARFAX. Following these guidelines should help steer you away from a potential flood victim or any other vehicle fraud.

END OF CLIP

Sorry, but it does occur and people need to be made aware of this profitable scam (as they also need to warned about the many creative timeshare based scams as well).

 

[MOXJO7282]

Joe,

You keep trying to use language to justify lying (I did it for my kids, I did it to spare the buyer, etc.). On some level, that tells me you understand what you did is wrong. I hope that means you won't do it again.

Your actions are the sort of thing that we here at TUG would absolutely be killing a developer or a timeshare reseller for if they were doing it.

Some folks are willing to let it slide, basically because you're one of us. But there's just no way to spin a series of lies as something to brag about or be proud of. Dishonesty isn't cool, whether it's by an individual or a timeshare salesman.

Here's my very last comment on why I don't feel like I did anything wrong. I had no intent to injure or harm anyone. In fact I contend I didn't harm anyone because they were unaware of the facts and just thought it was sold.

So how were they harmed? Because they didn't get any opportunity to buy a TS?


So no intent and no harm but yet someone actually compared me to Madoff.

That is rich.

 

[heathpack]

I read this post to a few people at work today, the most common response was "what a jerk."

Ar the dinner table, Mr. H's response, "I can certainly understand wanting to run this experiment, but he did it at the expense of other people's time, which is just wrong."

Certainly my conclusion is that I would never buy or rent from Joe, nor exchange a week with him- same for Ride- not that such a scenario is likely to ever happen, but still a good note to self.

H

 

[stevedmatt]

Bait and switch is when you tell them the lower priced item is sold and try to sell them a higher price item.

Definition of "switch and bait":
A deceptive sales technique that involves advertising a low-priced item to attract customers to a store, then persuading them to buy more expensive goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the advertised item on hand or by disparaging its quality.

That is bait and switch using a low price to get interest in his week and then persuading someone to buy the same week for 1000's more.

Again, I agree that this is immoral, but you just agreed with me and told me I was wrong at the same time. His situation isn't bait and switch. The item never changed, he just decided he didn't want to sell the item at that price point. It has happened millions of times as I explained above when many people want the same item (house as described in my post above).

While I completely disagree with what Joe did, this is not accurate.

Except in very few cases, the law does not consider an advertisement a binding offer.

In this case, the person answering the advertisement would be considered to be making an offer. Joe is then able to accept or decline. Alternatively, there'd be a Statute of Frauds issue because it's real property (officially moved into legal nerd territory with that one).

Agreed.

 

[Carolinian]

He did NOT sell the week to the same person, so by definiton it is NOT bair and switch. If he had told a buyer that week was sold but he had another he wanted to sell them, then you could say it was bait and switch, but he didn't. And it strikes me as odd that you are so concerned over Joe's morality but not that of RCI in many of its shananigans.

If you offer something for sale, it is certainly legal to change your mind and withdraw it. While it may indeed be more straightforward to tell a buyer you have withdrawn it rather than that you have sold it, the net result to them is the same. He was not trying to pawn a substitute item off on them, so this is clearly NOT bait and switch.

There is some really useful information on timesharing in this thread but it is being buried by those who want to crusade on morality.

Definition of "switch and bait":
A deceptive sales technique that involves advertising a low-priced item to attract customers to a store, then persuading them to buy more expensive goods by failing to have a sufficient supply of the advertised item on hand or by disparaging its quality.

This practice is illegal in many states under their Consumer Protection laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bait+and+Switch


He did just that. When they called to buy his week for his low price he as he said fibbed, lied, or best of all told them a story to save their feelings. He advertised it low but when people wanted to buy at that price he said it was sold, etc, and raised the price. That is bait and switch using a low price to get interest in his week and then persuading someone to buy the same week for 1000's more.

 

[tombo]

Again, I agree that this is immoral, but you just agreed with me and told me I was wrong at the same time. His situation isn't bait and switch. The item never changed, he just decided he didn't want to sell the item at that price point. It has happened millions of times as I explained above when many people want the same item (house as described in my post above).

The item doesn't have to change to be bait and switch. Either the price, the item, or both are bait and switch if you can not buy the advertised item, or the advertised item at the advertised price. If someone advertises a model 300 widget for $300 and when you go to buy it they tell you that they only had a couple for that price and now you will have to pay $600 to buy a model 300 widget, that is bait and switch. They are selling the same item, but not at the price they advertised it for.

Your house example is an ASKING price from a realtor. It is not an advertised sale price on a property. Asking prices are usually negotiable. That is why it is called an ASKING PRICE and not the price. An advertised sale price is supposed to be the price you can buy that item for.

 

[MOXJO7282]

He did NOT sell the week to the same person, so by definiton it is NOT bair and switch. If he had told a buyer that week was sold but he had another he wanted to sell them, then you could say it was bait and switch, but he didn't. And it strikes me as odd that you are so concerned over Joe's morality but not that of RCI in many of its shananigans.

If you offer something for sale, it is certainly legal to change your mind and withdraw it. While it may indeed be more straightforward to tell a buyer you have withdrawn it rather than that you have sold it, the net result to them is the same. He was not trying to pawn a substitute item off on them, so this is clearly NOT bait and switch.
There is some really useful information on timesharing in this thread but it is being buried by those who want to crusade on morality.

This is the crux of the legality of the situation, but Tombo and Rick's law intepretation is interesting. As far as the morality bashing it doesn't surprise me because unfortunately in this world there is always that element that are "holier than thou".

 

[MOXJO7282]

He did NOT sell the week to the same person, so by definiton it is NOT bair and switch. If he had told a buyer that week was sold but he had another he wanted to sell them, then you could say it was bait and switch, but he didn't. And it strikes me as odd that you are so concerned over Joe's morality but not that of RCI in many of its shananigans.

If you offer something for sale, it is certainly legal to change your mind and withdraw it. While it may indeed be more straightforward to tell a buyer you have withdrawn it rather than that you have sold it, the net result to them is the same. He was not trying to pawn a substitute item off on them, so this is clearly NOT bait and switch.

There is some really useful information on timesharing in this thread but it is being buried by those who want to crusade on morality.

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.

 

[chriskre]

The OP's tactics (whether moral or legal I cannot say) are very common in internet marketing. (Blackhat) I am glad that he had the courage to reveal what may be one of the reasons why so many ads go unanswered.

I for one, find that many sellers on Redweek don't even bother to respond and it makes me wonder if they're just fishing for my email address and contact info. Same goes for Craigslist. :annoyed:
.
I'm sure that no PCC would ever stoop to such levels now, would they?

Judging from the amount of phone calls I get from TS resellers I'm sure that they are using some type of these tactics to lure us all.

I don't see anything wrong with buying a TS on ebay at a wholesale price and turning around and making a retail profit right back on ebay again listed differently or in another marketplace. With TS's that's a risky proposition unless you truly understand the market, but more power to any TUGger who can make a go of this as a business.

OP, your mistake was being brutally honest with the juicy details of your good fortune. Next time just state the buy and sell price. Afterall that's what was really important anyway and would keep the judge and jury happy.