Heh, well it does say that you''re bidding on a PICTURE of an X-Box... that said, I can''t understand how a guy like this has such a high feedback rating. Maybe an inflated score by friends? Heard of people doing that before.

Yay! Justice with irony! The best kind of justice.

He possibly became.... teh suq?

I got a good chuckle out of that, but I hope no one buys it.

This is a great picture of an excellent Xbox collection!

His high feedback does not come from buyers, but from people he''s bought from...

Ah, so it does... very interesting... eBay should really think about having separate catagories for Buyer and Seller Feedback when it comes to asshats like this.

Here''s all the asshatting you can handle...

""The Asshat Network for all your asshat needs. ""

Paperclip X-wing? I always wanted one of those! Lots of places to stick the firecrackers!

There''s actually a bid on it. Did some sorry fool actually bid on it or did this moron bid on himself, I wonder...

Whoever won should ask for 2nd day Air to Antarctica. While probably not $300 worth of shipping, it should be a dent.

Come on just go for overnight, I''m sure he''s a reasonable guy.

I think it''s quite possible that Mr. Cleverseller might get a visit from a state AGs office or similar agency regarding false and deceptive trade practices for a start off the top of my head, if anyone was inclined to push the issue. I do not believe they care for this type of thing.

Of course it being in their bailiwick and them actually caring/having enough manpower/not being apathetic enough to do something about it may be a different issue.

It looks like he intentionally inflated his feedback rating by buying up tons of low cost, worthless crap (mostly $2-3). I''d guess he''s been preparing to become an e-bay rip off artist.

I believe that any poor buyers would have recourse through ebay''s protection policies due to the fact that the ad is misleading. Even though it does say ""picture"", the rest of it is misleading, especially to a non-native english speaker.

Here''s hoping anyway.

Although I am a lawyer, this is not specifically what I do for a living, I am not offering anyone any advice, use at your own risk, none of you are my clients, etc.

That said, I really don''t practice in the specific area of trade protection, and so what is stated below are general thoughts along with some hastily done research at the bottom (I typed this out of order from stream of consciousness, so if it''s all messed up, sorry).

Generally stated, the ability to do underhanded things with the actual intent to mislead is not necessarily protected under the law just because there was enough information to figure it out if you read it closely enough.

Although not completely connected (but an example nonetheless), there are laws that prevent you from selling junk and trying to disclaim all responsibilities away. For example, one cannot simply sell securities in a company by saying, ""It could be worth 20 times as much next year but it might be worth nothing, Buyer beware!"" Just as there are laws that regulate the sale of securities, there are laws that protect consumers from some of the above tactics.

O.K., after I typed most of the above, my own curiosity was piqued for concrete examples. So I quickly found the following under Minnesota Statutes, Section 325F.67. The emphasis is mine:

""Any person, firm, corporation, or association who, with intent to sell or in anywise dispose of merchandise, securities, service, or anything offered by such person, firm, corporation, or association, directly or indirectly, to the public, for sale or distribution, or with intent to increase the consumption thereof, or to induce the public in any manner to enter into any obligation relating thereto, or to acquire title thereto, or any interest therein, makes, publishes, disseminates, circulates, or places before the public, or causes, directly or indirectly, to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, or placed before the public, in this state, in a newspaper or other publication, or in the form of a book, notice, handbill, poster, bill, label, price tag, circular, pamphlet, program, or letter, or over any radio or television station, or in any other way, an advertisement of any sort regarding merchandise, securities, service, or anything so offered to the public, for use, consumption, purchase, or sale, which advertisement contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading, shall, whether or not pecuniary or other specific damage to any person occurs as a direct result thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and any such act is declared to be a public nuisance and may be enjoined as such.""

This is the result of a quick search, but is just intended to show that the layman''s idea that you can play cute games with advertising or sales where so long as nothing is acutally false, the buyer is screwed with no recourse, isn''t always true. These statutes often have fairly broad language (deceptive or misleading, for example) that is construed by case law. Judges will often interpret the language based on the facts presented. If the Ebay guy was brought before your average judge because a working class mom spent the entire Christmas cash on an XBox for her kids, how do you think he would try to interpret the above language against Mr. Assclown the Ebay salesman?