Jim.

Yup, those are my words. The seller can change his mind about selling when he gets a better offer elsewhere. The bidder cannot change his mind about buying when he finds a better deal somewhere else.

Althought the rules regarding this are crystal clear, on the face of it, it seems like a classic case of a double standard, and patently unfair.

However, the intention of the rules are to make eBay a safe and productive environment trading environment for sellers, and I've explained at great length why the rules evolved the way they have. eBay has been actively seeking a "professional" class of seller, which greatly benefits all buyers.

I guess it's like when an obviously guilty person walks away from an American court a free man because of a "technicalty". It hurts us to see it, it's an injustice, but there are damn good reasons behind the rules. If the guy was in Russian or Turkish prison, no way would he walk away, but I maintain there is more injustice in those justice systems than in ours.

I think that the rule allowing sellers to change their mind might, from time to time, create situtations that seem unfair to bidders. But I believe that much more often, the rule prevents injustice, and in the balance, it's a good rule.

Remember, there are two issues in this case, and hopefully, eBay will respond to you in detail.

First, is whether the seller had the right to cancel the bids and end the auction early when he found out his chip was worth a whole lot more than he realized. He clearly has that right.

Second, when he failed to cancel the bids before ending the auction, he DID create a contract with the high bidder. I don't think eBay will have any choice but to admit that.

Jim, I'll look forward to you sharing their response.