…so clearly the bike was worth more to them than its cash value.
Again: They probably needed that bike for work. Losing their job will easily cost them more than $400.
> yet no one did.
The bailiff did, and the buyer did, and they were the only parties with agency in the situation. Doesn't surprise me.
This is assuming OP’s value of the bike is correct. The fact that the debtor did not sell the bike is a datapoint that OP is overvaluing the bike.
> The bailiff did, and the buyer did, and they were the only parties with agency in the situation.
The entire room full of auction participants also had agency and chose not to bid the bike higher than 50 quid. Yet another datapoint that OP overvalued the bike.
Also, this brings me back to my main point: I find it hilarious that you don’t consider the debtor as having agency. People love to discuss the poor as if they’re helpless animals.
Literally no one involved cared about getting the best price except the bottom-feeders attending the auction.
Multiple people in this story had a financial incentive to profit from the bike, yet no one did. The only evidence we have of the bike's value is OP's claim. Does it not seem more likely that OP is simply wrong about the bike's value?