This is a great phisophical debate becasue there are an infinite number of varibles that exist within any interaction/transaction. In retrospect, I have approached different scenerios with different attitudes.

For example...

"Altruistic Negotiations".....I have negotiated person to person sales in which both parties acted in the best interest of BOTH people, in other words the value and merit of selling/buying the chip was discussed, opinions were exchanged and a final price was agreed upon. Both probably left a little money on the table but both walked away happy with a fair shake. No malice on either side

"Seller Beware" Conversely, I once walked into an antique store, and was greeted with a weary look and nod to the "Prices not negotiable" sign. I came across a few chips that were a bargain, not a steal but definitely a good deal for me. I took the chips, paid the non-negotiable price and walked out with a clean conscience. No presence of malice but unequal distribution of information.

"Buyer Beware" Myself, I have overpaid for some chips (mostly on ebay), sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes with eyes wide open. Never have I had a seller responded at the close of the sale by sending me a note saying "take 20% of the final bid as I am not comfortable realizing a nice price for my item". Again, no presence of malice but potential unequal distribution of information. (sometimes its just my willingness to pay a premium for instant gratification)

Finally there is the undeniable "wrong" scenario. The deliberate misrepresentation of product by buyer or seller, telling a seller that his price is ridiculously high, when it is in fact very low,or a seller photoshopping the cancellation off a Castaways $100 (ahhhem). The grey area in this scenario raises its head periodically on this very board with the debates over the definition of rarity. How many of you saw that box of Railroad Pass $5 sell a few weeks ago? Is it still fair to list the rarity listed in the books? This is where true malice can be present when one party feels aggrieved by the other in a deliberate manner. Inequity in information partnered with malice or "opportunistic larceny"

The final box in the matrix is both parties acting with malice. Not really a problem as these deals break down and usually result in a flame war before the deal gets done.

Feel free to dispute or concur, as only through discussion of these issues can the community reach a consensus.