Legal rip-offs

[Number Six]

From time to time I've seen ebay sellers letting valuables go way too cheap, here is a case in point: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1812-U-S-Half-D ... 7675.l2557

An $8000 or more collectible sells for $185, but there were a number of other similar valuables in the group.

In discussing the rip off one of the forum members makes this assertion:

"The person most at risk for litigation in this case isn't the seller, but the 3rd party who no doubt contacted him after the sale. Some of you do-gooders don't realize the possible consequences of your actions sometimes. I say this not in a derogatory manner, but rather wondering how the lines between friendly conversations and interfering in legal contracts becomes blurred. If someone was pursued for 3rd party interference, they would be in for a world of hurt if someone went whole-hog on them. The seller in this case's biggest downside would have been negative feedback."
https://forums.collectors.com/discussio ... red#latest

That's legal nonsense, right? The guy who sold it said his lawyer said that after he realized he made a big mistake and was threatened with a lawsuit he had no choice but let the sale go through, which I seriously doubt. For the lawyers, which I obviously am not, any input would be appreciated.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... but rather wondering how the lines between friendly conversations and interfering in legal contracts becomes blurred. If someone was pursued for 3rd party interference, they would be in for a world of hurt if someone went whole-hog on them. The seller in this case's biggest downside would have been negative feedback."

That's legal nonsense, right? The guy who sold it said his lawyer said that after he realized he made a big mistake and was threatened with a lawsuit he had no choice but let the sale go through, which I seriously doubt. For the lawyers, which I obviously am not, any input would be appreciated.

This is obviously not legal advice, but any seller of goods who unwittingly sells something for less than its actual value is stuck with the deal. In businesses where repeat transactions are the norm, the parties don't want to harm their relationship (or reputation) so simple errors that create an inordinate advantage for one or the other party are often corrected. But I think you'll find the terminology of "all sales are final" generally voids any recourse for both parties.

As far as a third-party interference action, IMHO that's roughly equivalent to pushing a string in a post-sale situation. Pre-sale is another issue entirely.

If a buyer wishes to act honorably, the right thing to do would be to point out the error and return the item. In the grand scheme of things today, one's personal reputation is spread instantly and personally, my conscience (as well as my wife) would not condone taking advantage of someone like that. Hell, I've even taken cash I found in parking lots into the store and turned it in. Just my thoughts. Not a legal opinion.

[Number Six]

Thanks for your observations. With ebay "terms of service" protects sellers. There are many outs, you lost the item, sprained your umbrella and weren't able to get to the library, etc.. You may get a negative and lawsuits can be fended off.

As to "tortious interference" that is a hell of a stretch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference The law usually takes intent, motive, and advantage into consideration, correct me if I'm wrong. Businesses and individuals have always tried to get the lion's share of the swag.