bababooey

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer. Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger? When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale. A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market. Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation. And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428. If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get. In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer. Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list. Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria. Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary. Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - however I pursue it, dealer says "no" - Would you feel that my denied $18 recovery is probation worthy? Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

When you only have 1 copy for sale, it's not that hard to keep track of it. You're missing a critical point: directly and specifically because of Dekeuk's refusal to return the book PROPERLY, the book was out of my hands for weeks and weeks and weeks...I got it back in MAY (the transaction was in JANUARY.) If Dekeuk had PROPERLY returned it, instead of violating USPS regulations, I would have received it back in a timely manner. Instead, it was lost in the USPS "refused packages" graveyard for months. It is the timeliness of the return, not the return itself, that is the issue. If the book had miraculously risen in price, Dekeuk would simply not have been responsible for damages...but he'd STILL have been liable for the PL, had the rules been different at the time. I did not miss that critical point, I acknowledged that I read what you wrote however I was addressing the compensation issue not the "cause" of your frustration with this buyer. However had I known beforehand that it took 'weeks and weeks and weeks" I may have felt differently. I was specifically responding to this statement of yours: And the answer to that question, of course, is no, and it wasn't the logic that was being employed. It is only if the buyer makes a significant delay in returning an item that it becomes an issue. Return it in a week? No problem. Return it after 6 months? Problem. And if that clearly irresponsible delay results in monetary damage, then yes, it should be part of the deal. If I sell a Green Lantern #59 three months before Green Lantern comes out, when the market is cooking (and this is easily observable), and the buyer doesn't return it until two months AFTER the film has bombed at the box office, and the price has dropped like a rock, the buyer's delay cost the seller money and should be compensated. That's how civil court cases like this work (depending on whether the plaintiff can prove the loss was the result of the delay, and they mitigate their damages.) That's my point. I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this: This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer. Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger? When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale. A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

Don't dwell on the 2 d) aspect; with or without it the new rules are acceptable to 90% of voters. Off-board is now defined. More detailed guideline for nomination will assist people in understanding what they should do when a deal goes bad. Nomination timeline (discussion to nomination is clearer)

When you only have 1 copy for sale, it's not that hard to keep track of it. You're missing a critical point: directly and specifically because of Dekeuk's refusal to return the book PROPERLY, the book was out of my hands for weeks and weeks and weeks...I got it back in MAY (the transaction was in JANUARY.) If Dekeuk had PROPERLY returned it, instead of violating USPS regulations, I would have received it back in a timely manner. Instead, it was lost in the USPS "refused packages" graveyard for months. It is the timeliness of the return, not the return itself, that is the issue. If the book had miraculously risen in price, Dekeuk would simply not have been responsible for damages...but he'd STILL have been liable for the PL, had the rules been different at the time. I did not miss that critical point, I acknowledged that I read what you wrote however I was addressing the compensation issue not the "cause" of your frustration with this buyer. However had I known beforehand that it took 'weeks and weeks and weeks" I may have felt differently. Have fun at SDCC.

I thought RMA disagreed with you stating that the seller should determine loss (7/7); after those exchanges he brought it up again on 7/11 and Comix4fun, when responding to me, appears to agree with RMA's market value loss claim. I brought forward RMA's 7/11 message w/historical outline since I didn't see a resolution. I understand your opinion POV. The easier argument for this particular Dekeuk nomination is to state that a probation List header change on 4/29/11 (to include off-board) doesn't apply to an off-board sale from Jan 2009. I think that is your point here POV. Even though nominating this guy aligns to the spirit of the PL it doesn't fit the rules in place at the time of the failed sale. I chose to frame my prior response to Comix4fun mainly in context of the "market value/realized loss" restitution debate - that "realized loss" rule has been applied for some time here. I believe there are valid arguments on both sides but the cleanest nomination methodology is to only allow the original non-sale to be the primary determining factor that should be considered when laying out a resolution.

Just because.... I vote no only because you probably still have 10 to 15 copies of Batman 428 that are already graded or that you are waiting to submit so regardless of what happened to the "market" during this particular transaction (no funds lost/book returned) not sure if I could see the justification as you being "wronged". I think this is someone many would like to avoid but I don't think it's a PL situation. I think how many other copies of this book he has is irrelevant. On this book, and this transaction he was supposed to get $405 and got $250, through no fault of his own. The math and the situation is one of the more clear cut and simple ones to comprehend, bringing in the seller's inventory is a non-starter and simply distracting to the core issue and the core problem. That's not ever considering the grief, hassle and problem caused by this buyer to this seller over and above the simple monetary loss he suffered. Furthermore, the "I think this is someone many would like to avoid" comment you made is EXACTLY why the PL is here in the first place. YES vote here. Thanks for the response Comix, I choose to continue to distract from the core issue. My argument is not against RMA it is against PL Rule 2 d) and the imposition of "additional expenses" beyond the REVERSED transaction in this case; the lesser amount was a subsequent sale. I don't agree with anything Dekeuk did here. The Probation Rule 2d) is the core issue that I feel does not apply to this nomination. The original sale took place in Jan 2009 - 2.5 years ago - presumably RMA had the book back two years ago - it was sold in 2009 at a loss when compared to the prior reversed sale w/Dekeuk. No arguments there. The claim for damage is based on the change in the market. Supply and demand are key factors affecting price. So if someone is timing the market they have information that leads them to believe that the market is going to change. Today there are only 40 copies of this issue in 9.8 - I've seen RMA hype this book and others, I've seen him post a flock of Bats 428 in Copper and it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibilities to presume someone "timing the market" might have a few of these pass a 9.8 pre-screen back in Jan 09. The assumption being that someone timing the market is trying to sell 9.8's before more copies hit the census. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this activity - for those who choose to do it for profit but I don't see why the PL list should be part of the tool kit used by someone who chooses to play that game. I am sure RMA is meticulous enough that he actually matched the serial numbers; meaning he resold the same book for less money. Would you trust all sellers to do this when they get two years to bring the loss forward to the PL? Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here. If the book had miraculously risen in price there would not be a PL nomination for compensation. If this guy get nominated then I say he's RMA's PL biatch until he cleans up his act demonstrating "good marketplace behaviour" but I don't see money being part of his release program.

Just because.... I vote no only because you probably still have 10 to 15 copies of Batman 428 that are already graded or that you are waiting to submit so regardless of what happened to the "market" during this particular transaction (no funds lost/book returned) not sure if I could see the justification as you being "wronged". I think this is someone many would like to avoid but I don't think it's a PL situation.

I won't tell her.

WW2 propaganda

Awesome, I have a possible suggestion 2 c) Nomination in Probation Discussion Thread Outline as completely as possible the circumstances surrounding the transaction in dispute, include hyperlinks to board transactions when possible. Please list all contact/attempted contact along with dates. If a sellers grievance cannot be completed (ie-book sold elsewhere for less) please outline proposed path to resolution. Note: Seller may re-list any book sold when a post-invoice follow up PM regarding payment has not been responded to for 10 days. Not sure if any of that has been covered here specifically, I've seen discussions about this since sellers are stuck holding books even when they smell a turd.

No sorry my message was directed at JazzMan's insistence that CB go back on the PL and could only be removed by Pat when the addition seemed a bit premature based on comments read here and my own opinion.

Clarity

I am glad to read this but I am confused because we already HAVE agreed on both a PM and a "reasonable" waiting period for reply to a PM. This is very old news but some folks are acting like it is all a new concept. From the original accusation, the deal went off in February and it was presented to all that multiple attempts were made for contact, therefore the reasonable waiting period had expired long ago. I agree, this is not a new concept. And to recall the original post... I don't believe this last part has been resolved, yet, therefore no removal. Are you guys referring to the same rules? Pat seemed willing to await feedback from ChunkyButt in the "discussion forum" yet your rules led to CB being added to the PL minutes later? If you're going to refer to rules AND be a gatekeeper (adding people) - share those rules don't just refer to them; reiterating the agreed upon rules will help others understand.

Does Decepticon recap this thread?

How the fcuhkk is this not a board transaction!?!?!? It sounded like a transaction that occurred outside the marketplace forum (but I now see that there is an "off board" option for the probation nominees) I thought it was restricted to board transactions so Comicdonna was right. (thumbs u Is this guy still on the user list?

not a board transaction - back to General

cereal boxes