It is not the question of “hurting commerce”. It is the principle of whether the government exists to protect people from their own stupidity. I think government shouldn’t, except in case of people who are found mentally incompetent to function in society.
I generally agree, but in cases like this there is no countervailing interest in allowing these type of contracts to be enforced.
It is abundantly clear that the only purpose of this type of ad is to trick people into believing that they are getting IPhones for that price. You would admit that, yes?
So why should society reward a huckster?
Only those people who think they can get an IPhone for 20% of the price they that the IPhone costs. Meaning, only for people who think they can trick the seller.
Where is the “society reward” in this situation exactly?
Terr, are you unaware of the fact that sometimes, through no malice or trickery, really good deals sometimes can actually be found? Especially in an auction context?
Sure, if you take advantage of the seller’s obvious mistake. Like if someone mistypes the price when submitting an auction.
Or if the seller just sets a starting price below what he really hopes it’ll go for, so as to stimulate interest. Which is, you know, what an auction is.
Reminds me of this classic story involving former U.S. Senator Claude Pepper and a challenger, George Smather. It’s a popular story in DC, though it didn’t really happen:
Part of American political lore is the Smathers “redneck speech,” which Smathers reportedly delivered to a poorly educated audience. The “speech” was never given; it was a hoax dreamed up by one reporter. Time Magazine, during the campaign, falsely claimed that Smathers said this:
" Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy."
The Smathers campaign denied his having made the speech, as did the reporters who covered his campaign, but the hoax followed Smathers to his death.
I didn’t realize this was a serious urban Legend. I’ve heard and read variations on the “non-insulting” speech for years, the ultimate one being Bill Garvin’s version in Mad magazine #139 from December 1970:
http://gis.washington.edu/phurvitz/outgoing/bustagut/Non-SlanderousPoliticalSmearSpeech.htm
Thanks - hadn’t seen that one!