What’s happening on BAT

[cjannelli]

Followed this auction. Thought it was done when I left work. I guess not.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1955-porsche-356-pre-a-speedster-6/

[Matt Monson]

Looks like Luke has a new ride…

[cjannelli]

Maybe, I hope so! Sounds like multiple auction disrupted

[techweenie]

I had a BaT auction disrupted when the entire site went down due to people watching a Gullwing auction.

10 of the last 20 minutes, the site was unreachable.

BaT decided that was enough and wouldn't relist. And that was before they sold out to a corporation.

Good luck to Macroni

[cjannelli]

Looks like the owner has a very malignant form seller’s remorse. Throwing T Scott under the bus.
Chris

[Macroni]

I'm assuming the auction results will be negated by the sellers lack of desire to sell @ hammer price. The car has needs both sorting and engine work. I was close to max at $315 ($322,5) anyway.

I'm not panicked as there are many Speedsters on the market. I am very interested in a Pre A.

[Mocker]

I just left a message; hopefully they don't try to just say "sorry, here's your refund." A deal's a deal.

[dg567]

The person whose BAT account should be banned. If you take a car on consignment how do you not take possession of the title to make sure the transaction goes smoothly.

It meets reserve you have to sell it, plain and simple.

[Arbee]

This wasn't a consignment sale, it was a private party representing the car's owner.
A consignment through a dealer will have a signed consignment agreement.

The owner cannot be forced to sell the car, so the best outcome is for BaT to refund Macroni's $7,500 buyer's fee.

[Matt Monson]

Tom Scott is an old time Colorado 356 guy. He’s done a lot of showing and restoration stuff with good success on the concours scene. It seems a shame he didn’t better vet the car and/or seller, in agreeing to sell it under his “name”.

[Macroni]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

It seems a shame he didn’t better vet the car and/or seller, in agreeing to sell it under his “name”.

Agree. This was his sixth auction. "Whoops" is not a defense.

What confused the situation was when his first move was to discredit the auction when no-one bid after me.

It was discourteous when he refused to respond to either my phone calls or email to explain his dilemma. I felt that was cowardly, an old fashion but appropriately used word to describe his behavior.

Latest information from BaT is it will have a conclusion today. It seems Tom Scott is ghosting them also.

Another example of the hobbies underside (@TScott) for us all to see.

[MrBonus]

The representative selling the car should firmly remind the owner that the car won't be easy to sell given the present outcome of the auction and the relatively small world of the Porsche community. Furthermore, ignoring the buyer completely is unacceptable. As a business owner myself, things go wrong, sometimes it's your fault, you keep the lines of communication open and do your best to remind the clients what you're doing to resolve the issue.

Macroni, I hope BaT refunds your fee ASAP. This shouldn't take 4 days to resolve.

[Macroni]

Response from BaT

"Hello Luke,

I am sorry the seller has been unresponsive. It appears this is likely a dead deal, unfortunately, and we will have to handle things with the seller accordingly.

That said, I will provide you with the final say: Would you like me to continue to apply pressure to see if we can't get this one across the line? Or would you simply like a full refund and move on?"

I chose to move on..... actually the BaT associate that assisted was highly competent.

[Matt Monson]

Hard to ask more than that under the circumstances.

[Macroni]

Agree.

The hunt continues....

[MrBonus]

Definitely a case of "buy the seller." Good luck in your hunt.

[Mocker]

Total BS, IMO. Once again, BAT doesn't go to bat (sorry) for the buyer.

[Matt Monson]

Originally Posted by Mocker

Total BS, IMO. Once again, BAT doesn't go to bat (sorry) for the buyer.

The email they sent him suggested they were willing to do just that. But they asked the buyer what he would like to do, first. How did they fail him?

[Mocker]

Originally Posted by Matt Monson

The email they sent him suggested they were willing to do just that. But they asked the buyer what he would like to do, first. How did they fail him?

Do they have a written agreement with the seller? If so, have the lawyers send them a nastygram. See where it goes from there.

Not standing up for the buyer establishes a pretty grim precedent, where sellers can get away with screwing over buyers, while those in the cheap seats are left to wonder if they're going to get f'ed over if they participate, too.

BAT is a pretty big business these days. They need to stop acting like they're still operating out of a dorm room.

[Macroni]

Originally Posted by Mocker

Do they have a written agreement with the seller? If so, have the lawyers send them a nastygram. See where it goes from there.

Not standing up for the buyer establishes a pretty grim precedent, where sellers can get away with screwing over buyers, while those in the cheap seats are left to wonder if they're going to get f'ed over if they participate, too.

BAT is a pretty big business these days. They need to stop acting like they're still operating out of a dorm room.

I do agree with Mocker here.

If there was legal action that could have been taken utilizing the boilerplate agreement between seller and BaT, it should have been taken and it should not been on me to pursue it. It is their responsibility operating and profiting from the site.