I understand what you're saying: while the PL serves as a warning, the primary objective of the PL is to get problem transactions completed.
Thus, when an offended party proposes a nomination, it's not simply to "get back at someone" but serve as an incentive to get the deal done.
So yes, the offended party should have at least a general idea of what would be needed to get the transaction satisfactorily completed.
However, there have been some problem transactions were the way forward is not readily clear. Initially, this looked like it could have been one of those transactions - buyer wants the book, seller sold the book and no longer has it.
In such cases, I would think the burden of finding a way to move forward would fall on the offender, not the offended.
This is why I was nominated.
No.
You were nominated because you unilaterally broke a deal which had terms that you and the buyer had both agreed upon.
So you feel absolutely no responsibility whatsoever to try and make things right with the buyer?
I told him I didn't mail the book yet and I would sell it to him, he declined.
And why did he decline?
He clearly said why: because selling the book to him now would involve doing to someone else what you were going to do to him.
What you've done with this transaction is put yourself in the unenviable position of having two buyers who have equal legitimate claim to the same book.
If you pull the book back and sell it to the first buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the second buyer.
If you go ahead with your deal with the second buyer, you're breaking your agreement with the first buyer.
You've claimed that the second buyer would be understanding if you couldn't fulfill your commitment to him. But you also assumed that the first buyer would be understanding about breaking your deal with him - without discussing it with him first. As it turns out, he wasn't. Are you sure your second buyer will be understanding, especially if you haven't discussed it with him yet? And even if he is, should he have to be? He didn't create this situation, you did.
Here's a suggestion:
In one of your snarky, dismissive responses you mentioned that there are several of these on eBay.
Why not buy one of those copies and send it to one of your buyers? That way you can fulfill your commitments to both of your buyers.
Of course, you won't make in money on the deal. You might even loose some. But you can chalk that up to a learning experience: don't agree to extended payment terms when what you really need is immediate payment and don't break or alter an agreement without discussing it with the other party first.
That's just a suggestion. And since it sounds like the first buyer is dropping the nomination, there's nothing in terms of the Probation process obligating you to come up with a solution.
It depends on how much your reputation as a seller on these boards is worth to you.
Well said, but my other concern (if I were the buyer) would have been sending a MO after all of this confusion. The Buyer has no protection that way.
Jeez, first I dont sell him the book, then I steal his money.
What kinda of monster do you think I am?