462 views
New Reviewer
4 comments

I have purchased property through auction.com and successfully obtained title etc. I have also purchased properties through them with a quit claim deed and am in the process of securing title.

Yes their terms are very tight and not much wiggle room once you are the winning bidder. However, the latest event bothered me considerably. I was bidding on a property that had a bid go up to 54000, only to realize that in the last few seconds the bid price DROPPED to 45000 and there was no time to secure a winning bid. This smells of internal manipulation and collusion!!

I called their customer service person and was trying to understand how a bid can drop to that extent. her explanation was that the winning bidder decided to withdraw their bid. There is no such withdrawal option in their "online bidding terms" that I can read. My follow up question to her was "why did'nt the time clock reset to allow other bidders to purchase, just like it does when the bid is going upward.

There was no response to that question. I talked with a person named Jill, who incidently was quite rude with her answers and did not try to resolve the qustions I was asking her. This surely smells of internal manipulation of the bidding process, but I have no way of proving it at this time. I have a real estate attorney that I am going to take this up with, maybe take them to court to get questions answered.

I think auction.com has a class action suit coming up if there can be enough people who haev been affected with such shady transactions.

If there is any interest in others to go after them, lets go after this company.

Monetary Loss: $2500.

Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Do You Have Something To Say ?
Write a review

Comments

chat-icon

Please avoid publishing any personal information and promotional content

You will be automatically registered on our site. Username and password will be sent to you via email.
Post Comment
Guest

I wish I could give zero stars.

google auction.com reviews

pissedconsumer.com

ripoffreport.com

I won a property above reserve(reserve MET) provided funds and within a few days my funds were returned cause they changed their mind. (back door better offer?)

it sold for 2x my bid later and then flipped for 2x again...

tried to bid on local properties. they went higher than my bid but reserve MET... next auction around-they were up for sale again. customer service a JOKE!!!

chat ended by agent before my questions were answered. WOW... same experience as with phone support. I guess if you have monopoly on foreclosure auctions-you can treat customers like trash.

too bad. how many of these positive reviews are by employees getting a free lunch for every positive comment or review?

Guest

I agree Jill is very rude. I spoke with her too.

Instead pushing the button and emailing me copy of executed contract (which I couldn't not open) she said contract has not been approved (but it was) so I had to contact RCO Legal for a copy.

If you go for class act count me in: ada.40@***.com

They sold me house that was unsalable because they didn't foreclosed right.

2.5 months they are sitting on my earnest money deleting in every possible way to refund it. "

Most current one :"cancelation is pending"

It takes up to 2 business day to refund money but no limits how long pending could be "pending"

Guest

******Let the People Know, GET JUSTICE.

The Court of Appeals just released a decision that shows that getting greedy will get yaโ€™ in the end. Despite precedents that show that contracts substantially favoring the party with the greater power often are deemed unconscionable (so unfair as to not be enforceable), lawyers stiff draft them and companies still like them.

First year law students learn that such contracts are problematic at best and yet Companies still pay some lawyer big money to come up with the rag.

The trial court dismissed "BIG COMPANIES" counterclaim because it found that the indemnification clause was not clear and understandable enough for an ordinary person to understand what he or she was contracting away. "BIG COMPANY" appealed and argued that rule only applied to pre-injury releases and, instead, this was an indemnity provisions. They cited case law that found such a provision valid. If you have a greater interest in the process and reasoning of the court, please read the decision. For our purposes here, we are going to cut to the heart of the matter.

The Court decided that it did not matter which case law was applied to this particular contract because the guiding principal fit both pre-injury releases and indemnification clauses. The holding of the Court is that when a contract that is used to defend against the indemnifeeโ€™s own negligence is โ€œagreed to by a party in a clearly inferior bargaining positionโ€ (Id. at 9) then it is against public policy and not enforceable. In other words, by taking advantage the less sophisticated and trying to have all the protection and none of the risk, "BIG COMPANY" made their fancy contract worth no more than the paper it was written on. I sure would like to know how much they paid for that contract to be drafted

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-653001

When a court uses the word unconscionable to describe conduct, it means that the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience. In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.

In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace.

Contractual provisions that indicate gross one-sidedness in favor of the seller include provisions that limit damages against the seller, limit the rights of the purchaser to seek court relief against the seller, or disclaim a Warranty. State and federal Consumer Protection and Consumer Credit laws were enacted to prevent many of these unconscionable contract provisions from being included in sales contracts.

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances include, for example, the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties. The doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce such contracts.

Unconscionable conduct is also found in acts of Fraud and deceit, where the deliberate Misrepresentation of fact deprives someone of a valuable possession. Whenever someone takes unconscionable advantage of another person, the action may be treated as criminal fraud or the civil action of deceit.

No standardized criteria exist for measuring whether an action is unconscionable. A court of law applies its conscience, or moral sense, to the facts before it and makes a subjective judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court's "shock the conscience test" in rochin v. california, 342 U.S. 165, 72 S. Ct. 205, 96 L. Ed. 183 (****), demonstrates this approach. The Court ruled that pumping the stomach of a criminal suspect in search of drugs offends "those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of English-speaking peoples." The Court relied on these general historical and moral traditions as the basis for ruling unconstitutional an unconscionable act.

Auction Com Reviews

  1. 9 reviews
  2. 4 reviews
  3. 1 review
  4. 0 reviews
  5. 0 reviews
Auction Com reviews