As far as your example about home escrow, you are comparing a regulated market with an unregulated market. Also, you are skipping the entire negotiation process in homebuying, which to me is the better example. If you advertise your house at $200,000 in the paper, but the market goes up overnight(only been going down recently) are you required to sell your house for $200,000 to the first buyer? Of course not. But they Offered it!!! Doesn't matter, common sense overruled you, and you do not take a huge loss. You would sift through the offers to find one that meets your needs. In these examples, the online stores had goods that went up in value dramatically, and they responded. Did the respond correctly? usually not. Did the customer come away happy? usually not.
That's not the right comparison though. A more apt one would be as such:
I advertise my house for some price. A seller contacts me, looks at it, etc. Then, we AGREE ON A PRICE, and we sign a contract saying we're good to go. However, before he takes delivery of the house, but after he has already put some money towards it, I find out that I could have sold it for a lot more, so I tell him that the price has gone up and unless he wants to pay that, I'm not actually going to sell him the house anymore.
See, saying that it was offered at that price is not a good comparison, because the stores did more than offer it. In many of these cases, they actually charged the credit card and everything. At that point, the buyer has fulfilled their end of the contract, and it is incredibly unethical on the part of the seller to just skip out of their half. In the example above, don't you think the seller acted in a very unethical (and probably illegal, but IANAL) matter? Why is it OK if you run a card shop then?
This happens all the time in the housing market. This is why you have escrow and real estate lawyers to handle it. Does anyone know any magic the gathering attorneys? Your example uses the fact a contract was signed, which is great for the buyer. However when you use a website, you are agreeing to their terms and conditions. So, your contract argument is out the window, and cannot mean anything in these cases- by ordering from them you agree to their conditions. It sucks for individual buyers trying to game the system, but that is just too bad. People want the flexibility to order online, but they also want to be able to make amazing deals. which one is more important to you?
We have already had several people come on and explain how this happens in different industries, and the fact it exists to protect the business' interest in continuing to sell cards. Some of the opinions on this thread make it seem like card stores should not be allowed to make a profit, or they should only be allowed to make a small profit. Why even run a store if you cannot keep it profitable in some ways? In many ways, these people are providing a service that is in fact, very dangerous. However unlikely, their entire stocks of cards could be worth nothing tomorrow if Hasbro shut down MTG to focus on core business. (unlikely, but possible) Now on top of that, people are demanding they can game the system to make profit from them and leave them without stock to assist other consumers. I guess I may be alone on this ship, but this is insane to me. If everyone was allowed to make such deals from the online vendors, at what point do they cease to exist? The best part is that people who read this site, or people who are serious MTG collectors or tournament players most likely make up only a small percentage of users/buyers. The casual scene is much more profitable, and it seems to me the sites should cater to them and not "us".
there is a difference between someone fraudulently selling cards, and someone stopping an order because it would be bad for their business.
