Ebay seller flipping Stepped Blue Titanium Chaparral's that he got for $19 each

[Bodog]

meh, I entered. Maybe I'll win it and return it to ecop! :)

That's a great idea. I just entered for that purpose.

[NinjaRyder0920]

Quite a profit on those. They were his to do with as he pleases, it's just up to you if you'd like to pay his asking price. Bring this to our attention provides fellow forum-goers the information about whether or not they'd like to purchase them knowing what we know now. It looks like his price is still less than asking price from many online retailers, so it is a deal in that regards. Flipping for profit is nothing new, just take a look at the mark-up on the limited ZT factory customs that have been released. Yes, not quite as high as this, but where ever there is a chance to make some money, people tend to jump on it. How big of a profit is up to the individual. You could choose to pass those savings on or try to get as much as possible.

I prefer the former, but just some 0.02.

[bdblue]

I came across the thread for the giveaway and was surprised that all of the responses were civil.

I'm going to post a response to that thread with my MD ideas, and use restraint to keep from leaving any bad comments. That isn't a knife model that I want so I'm not going to enter the contest.

[Bodog]

Same here. I entered just in case I won I could send it to ecop if they want to pay for shipping.

[Surfingringo]

Same here. I entered just in case I won I could send it to ecop if they want to pay for shipping.

I really will send it back to them if I win. I don't want to get too into the moral debate, but I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a lack of understanding in a few of the responses. The problem here isn't that he is making a big profit. I am a capitalist to the core and would never begrudge anyone for making as big a profit as they can in any business venture. The problem is how he came about them. To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day. I don't know...I guess I'd just like to believe that most of us were raised better than that.

Anyway, thats way more than I wanted to say on the subject so I will be stepping away from this little debate.

[Bodog]

Same here. I entered just in case I won I could send it to ecop if they want to pay for shipping.

I really will send it back to them if I win. I don't want to get too into the moral debate, but I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a lack of understanding in a few of the responses. The problem here isn't that he is making a big profit. I am a capitalist to the core and would never begrudge anyone for making as big a profit as they can in any business venture. The problem is how he came about them. To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day. I don't know...I guess I'd just like to believe that most of us were raised better than that.

Anyway, thats way more than I wanted to say on the subject so I will be stepping away from this little debate.

Agreed completely.

[MichaelScott]

Same here. I entered just in case I won I could send it to ecop if they want to pay for shipping.

I really will send it back to them if I win. I don't want to get too into the moral debate, but I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a lack of understanding in a few of the responses. The problem here isn't that he is making a big profit. I am a capitalist to the core and would never begrudge anyone for making as big a profit as they can in any business venture. The problem is how he came about them. To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day. I don't know...I guess I'd just like to believe that most of us were raised better than that.

Anyway, thats way more than I wanted to say on the subject so I will be stepping away from this little debate.

Agreed completely.

Surfingringo, I believe you have captured the fundamental ethical issue. Thanks.

[Cliff Stamp]

To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day.

The original argument was that the person committed theft and fraud. It should be obvious why it is completely insensible for the law to work that way in the sale/trade of goods. If it wasn't this way then any time you made a purchase you were at risk of being convicted of stealing because of a mistaken price tag. It is in any way reasonable to expect people to be aware of the expected retail value of all goods they purchase and make it a criminal offense if they didn't? Now you might argue something like they should have known given who they were and realized the price was a mistake, however just think about how you would enforce that and the kind of liability anyone would have once they had some of knowledge status over a certain type of goods.

Could you make an argument that it is morally wrong in the case where you buy something where you suspect the price is a mistake? Sure, however it is hopefully obviously true that you can't naively assume your moral viewpoint is universal and is anything other than your preference. As just one example of a completely different viewpoint, when I was in India it was very common when it was realized I was a foreigner for the merchants to vastly inflate prices, easily by a factor of 10X and often as high as 50-100X. My first response to this was to be upset, I felt I was being cheated. My partner thought this was extremely funny and quite naive (they are Indian). To them the merchant was doing what he is supposed to do, get the most money from his products he can to support his family. I was not doing what I was supposed to do which was become educated so I could get the most product for my money to support my family.

I asked them about this as I was curious about their perspective. As I expected they had no moral issues with the purchaser and in fact if they did not buy it they would have felt it to be very odd behavior considering that he knew he could make a large profit and that buying/selling knives was one of his sources of income. If you asked them about the seller they would simply say that they should have ensured the software which generated the ads would not allow such a mistake and if they failed to do that then it would be insensible to blame other people for their lack of effort. It would be no different than not doing your research, underpricing your goods and then getting upset that your customers didn't inform you that you should charge more and then paying you more than what you list. Great if they would do that, but very odd to say they are morally wrong if they don't.

Now you might disagree with their moral interpretation sure, but good luck on coming up with some kind of argument for which you could ground your view as the right one. People have been trying to do that since the concept began. In short, simply because someone doesn't see the morality of a situation the same as you do doesn't mean they don't understand it. They could understand it just as much as you do, even more, and still get a different conclusion.

[ChrisinHove]

It's interesting that the behaviour described by Cliff is often perceived as somehow dishonest whereas supermarkets exploiting their small suppliers to the point of bankruptcy is merely the operation of the free market, and we gladly flock to the cheapest....

Well off topic now ... I'll get my coat....

[brian0918]

Same here. I entered just in case I won I could send it to ecop if they want to pay for shipping.

I really will send it back to them if I win. I don't want to get too into the moral debate, but I'm a bit surprised at what seems to be a lack of understanding in a few of the responses. The problem here isn't that he is making a big profit. I am a capitalist to the core and would never begrudge anyone for making as big a profit as they can in any business venture. The problem is how he came about them. To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day. I don't know...I guess I'd just like to believe that most of us were raised better than that.

Anyway, thats way more than I wanted to say on the subject so I will be stepping away from this little debate.

Great to see there's someone else here with integrity. I can't count how many times cashiers have forgotten to scan items, or even forgotten to ask for payment, and I've had to remind them.

It's a simple enough policy to live by: don't want for the unearned.

[brian0918]

It's interesting that the behaviour described by Cliff is often perceived as somehow dishonest whereas supermarkets exploiting their small suppliers to the point of bankruptcy is merely the operation of the free market, and we gladly flock to the cheapest....

Exploit how? All transactions are voluntary, both parties agree willingly and freely, no agreements are the result of computer price glitches or other mistakes.

[Bodog]

If you go to a store and buy something that costs 19 dollars and hand a blind clerk a $20 bill and they thought that you handed them a $100 and gave you $81 back and you pocket it, sure, no law was broken, but you just screwed over an innocent person. If that person walks out the front door grinning a huge grin and offers me a $20 bill and I saw what happened, I'd take that $20 bill and walk right back into the store and give it to the blind clerk because it's the right thing to do versus the legally mandated thing to do.

If I walk into Walmart and see they priced a $30 pack of batteries at $0.30, an obvious mistake, I'd walk up to the front desk and let them know. When they charge me the full $30, that's not an unfair price and i wouldn't complain. If they offered, after knowing they messed up, to sell me the pack of batteries at the advertised price, then I'd buy them and be happy. The only time I'd make a big stink is if I bought a $30 pack of batteries thinking they were on sale for $27. I come back several days later and they demand the $3. I'd say that it was an honest mistake on my part, it was close enough to the actual market price where I thought maybe it was on sale or Walmart was under pricing their competitors.

If I bought the pack of batteries for $0.30 in the first place, knowing I was being a heel to begin with, then of course if Walmart asked for the money back I'd point to the fact that they sold it for that price and they need to suck it up. But that's if I was a heel to begin with.

Now, it would be mitigated if I took a battery or two out of the pack and gave the rest to a poor kid hanging out on the street because he genuinely can't afford anything on his own. Maybe he could trade those batteries for an ice cream cone or some other luxury that he'd rarely be able to get on his own, or maybe he could trade them for a new jacket to stay warm.

If he gave them to someone who was as well off as he is, then no charity was given and no penance was paid, he only brought out other heels to profit off of the original mistake. But if the person as well off as he is took those batteries back into Walmart, maybe Walmart would take them back, but probably not, at which point the well off person could change the wrong that was made by person #1 and then give those batteries to the poor kid.

Just a tale of morality versus law.

What's right is not always legal and what's legal is not always right. This coming from a dude who enforces laws and has seen the need to disregard a law enforcement action when someone does something right outside of the law where discretion can be used.

To me, its kind of analogous to handing a storeowner a $20 bill and he accidentally hands you change for a 100 and you just smile and stick it in your pocket and call it your lucky day.

The original argument was that the person committed theft and fraud. It should be obvious why it is completely insensible for the law to work that way in the sale/trade of goods. If it wasn't this way then any time you made a purchase you were at risk of being convicted of stealing because of a mistaken price tag. It is in any way reasonable to expect people to be aware of the expected retail value of all goods they purchase and make it a criminal offense if they didn't? Now you might argue something like they should have known given who they were and realized the price was a mistake, however just think about how you would enforce that and the kind of liability anyone would have once they had some of knowledge status over a certain type of goods.

Could you make an argument that it is morally wrong in the case where you buy something where you suspect the price is a mistake? Sure, however it is hopefully obviously true that you can't naively assume your moral viewpoint is universal and is anything other than your preference. As just one example of a completely different viewpoint, when I was in India it was very common when it was realized I was a foreigner for the merchants to vastly inflate prices, easily by a factor of 10X and often as high as 50-100X. My first response to this was to be upset, I felt I was being cheated. My partner thought this was extremely funny and quite naive (they are Indian). To them the merchant was doing what he is supposed to do, get the most money from his products he can to support his family. I was not doing what I was supposed to do which was become educated so I could get the most product for my money to support my family.

I asked them about this as I was curious about their perspective. As I expected they had no moral issues with the purchaser and in fact if they did not buy it they would have felt it to be very odd behavior considering that he knew he could make a large profit and that buying/selling knives was one of his sources of income. If you asked them about the seller they would simply say that they should have ensured the software which generated the ads would not allow such a mistake and if they failed to do that then it would be insensible to blame other people for their lack of effort. It would be no different than not doing your research, underpricing your goods and then getting upset that your customers didn't inform you that you should charge more and then paying you more than what you list. Great if they would do that, but very odd to say they are morally wrong if they don't.

Now you might disagree with their moral interpretation sure, but good luck on coming up with some kind of argument for which you could ground your view as the right one. People have been trying to do that since the concept began. In short, simply because someone doesn't see the morality of a situation the same as you do doesn't mean they don't understand it. They could understand it just as much as you do, even more, and still get a different conclusion.

[Cliff Stamp]

All transactions are voluntary, both parties agree willingly and freely, no agreements are the result of computer price glitches or other mistakes.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to do something or I will shoot you - is that still voluntary because you can choose not to? Most people would say it isn't because I am using force to ensure that the consequences of you not agreeing to the contract I propose is worse than any downside of the contract. Hence I could make almost any demand and you would chose it because otherwise you would die. Thus even though you have a choice it isn't voluntary.

It has been known for decades that Supermarkets will exploit their buying power by engaging in unfair trading practices . Supermarkets can and do also force sale without contract so as to enforce additional demands after purchase such as transport costs, reimbursement for damaged goods - none of which terms were noted at the time of sale. They can again do this because of the power they have due to market share and the willingness to use this to its fullest extent.

Supermarkets can and do force suppliers to sell them goods under the cost of production. This obviously isn't voluntary as it leads to the death of the suppliers, but they simply have no choice as the alternative is to let the goods go unsold. These practices are so severe that in the UK and other places laws had to be put in place to prevent Supermarkets from engaging in unfair trading.

--

Now just think about saying that all of that is morally right and is just an example of the "free market" but flipping out that someone exploited a pricing mistake to the point of calling them a thief/fraud . The morality that says that Supermarkets are moral but that guy is immoral is an interesting one surely, I would agree with Chris on that. It is even more interesting if people would agree that Supermarkets are immoral all while buying there because of the lower prices - but then flip out at the guy for buying that knife.

[Cliff Stamp]

Just a tale of morality versus law.

All you have done is just stated that the actions were not moral according to you without even describing the framework. It is hardly the case that is the only possible moral interpretation. I have explained in the above another person could look at the same situations and claim there was no moral wrong. In fact other people could see that it was a moral wrong for you not to exploit those situations because you were putting the welfare of others over the welfare of your family. Now again you could disagree with that moral interpretation, but it certainly isn't a trivial argument that your moral viewpoint is the right one.

[Bodog]

It can be summed up as simply as "two wrong don't make a right" And did ecop, the actual vendor of the knife who priced it incorrectly, engage in unfair or unethical business practices to deserve someone taking advantage when they messed up?

[Bodog]

There's right and wrong, legal and illegal. There are times where they don't match up. And morality doesn't shift, but sometimes there are gray areas. You're saying that morality shifts. That's untrue. Taking advantage of an innocent person/entity is never right unless you're possibly trying to save the life of someone else. Buying a bunch of obviously underpriced knives and then giving one away is not indicative of someone who is trying to feed their kids.

[brian0918]

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to do something or I will shoot you - is that still voluntary because you can choose not to?

Of course not.

It has been known for decades that Supermarkets will exploit their buying power by engaging in unfair trading practices

With guns? Where are the guns? Unfair how?

They can again do this because of the power they have due to market share

Again, where are the guns? Nobody is forcing companies to deal with supermarkets. If they throw in hidden costs, suppliers are free to refuse. And if they are free to refuse, then they are not being forced do anything.

Supermarkets can and do force suppliers to sell them goods under the cost of production.

How do they force them? You keep using that word.

Giving the supplier a deal that the supplier doesn't like, but still agrees to, is not force. It's the supplier's responsibility to keep themselves in business through good decision-making. It's not anyone else's responsibility.

[Bodog]

Cliff, I really did not expect for you to take the stance that you're taking. Some others, yeah, I expected it. I guess it goes to show that what's posted on these forums about knives and the rights and wrongs of these knife businesses does not actually show the individual integrity of a person. I guess it's easy to blast the unethical practices of a company you don't like but when you take a stance that defends a constantly shifting morality, then there's not a lot of room to talk about an unethical knife company with shady practices.

[Surfingringo]

Cliff, I know you are enjoying the debate, but I also am pretty confident that you wouldn't keep the money if a store owner erroneously gave you change for a hundred instead of a twenty. I'm also fairly confident you wouldn't take the same store owners $250 product for $20 if you knew he had made a mistake when pricing it.

Now I'm sure you are capable of dismantling the above statements in the interest of a healthy "debate", but I doubt that you can tell me I am wrong about either of my assessments of your character.

[Cliff Stamp]

It can be summed up as simply as "two wrong don't make a right" ...

That is again just asserting the action was morally wrong, as I have noted in the above not everyone is going to see it as wrong and it is easily possible for a moral framework to note that it is in fact wrong not to exploit the mistake .

And did ecop, the actual vendor of the knife who priced it incorrectly, engage in unfair or unethical business practices to deserve someone taking advantage when they messed up?

That isn't the argument. Chris wasn't stating that it was moral, he was stating it was interesting that would be described as immoral yet it is perfectly moral for Supermarkets to engage in unfair trading.