EC ed

Phil is awesome - he just bought another one of my books (a pedigree X-Men slab), and it was smooth sailing, as usual. Great boardie here.

Trivial?!? Smack yourself. That's a nice one! It's on "the list" Here's my raw copy:

Actually, getting right back on topic, that MMC #9 you all are discussing is going to be a significant obstacle, it seems. , especially since I care more about the motorcycle than the Torch-Subby battle

Thanks! After I get them all . Nah, that's too ambitious...maybe I'll start a thread about that sometime...

Sorry to deviate from the current discussion, but wanted to post up this fresh acquisition from the recent CC auction...just got it in hand today.

Happy to put this one in the boxes (last week) to finish the 2-issue Happy Houlihans run . This one took a while to track down...already cracked it out of that old label slab and freshened up the microchamber

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit? So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern? Tweaking my earlier example: Seller offers a VF/NM bats #123 with "no returns" on ebay, no mention of restoration. Buyer finds restoration, files paypal SNAD claim. Paypal refunds buyer from sellers account. Seller nominates buyer for PL.... Got it.

Could you give some sort of hypothetical example that illustrates this concern so that we can flesh it out a bit? So, an (unscrupulous, perhaps) seller sells a restored book to a buyer here....pick a hypothetical seller return policy...could be "no returns", "10-day returns", or whatever...and then what happens that would give rise to your concern?

I'm confused. Here, on the boards, if you purchase a book from a seller...here, on the boards...and you pay them via regular PayPal, you are fully covered by PayPal's buyer protection program for 180 days for an "item not as described." The PayPal buyer protection doesn't suddenly vanish if someone posts some different return policy in their sales thread rules. All it means is that buyer wouldn't have an enforcement mechanism through the boards, per se.

Please remember that most of us are not Macy's, Bloomingdale's or professional dealers;)[/color] amen

all around. I really do think this is a productive discussion...we just need to carry it through to something actionable....in time, perhaps.

I'm starting to think that you all have me on ignore.

Probably a good step to "require" sales threads to have a stated return policy (even if the stated policy is ' no returns'), just as we " require" payment method and shipping terms. Then we can button hump threads that don't have a stated policy. I agree that many sellers will neglect this requirement, and people will buy from those threads before we can hump them. Then, we're back to the matter of what to do for PL purposes if a buyer buys from such a thread, and then has a problem...

Let's do another example. Let's pretend we took a vote on those issues up there, and decided the following: 2) If there is an unstated return policy or a generic "satisfaction guarantee", "resto guarantee", or whatever, that has no stated duration, how long will we, the board, declare that return/guarantee window to be? SUPPOSE WE VOTED 2 Years Ok, great... 3) How long should the PL statute of limitations be (i.e., time you have to nominate to the PL after the point of a transaction failure, regardless of the nature of the transaction failure)?: SUPPOSE WE VOTED 1 Year Now, it's relatively straightforward. Give me whatever scenario you want. Seller sells a book with a generic "guarantee" or unstated return policy on June 17, 2015. Under those two hypothetical example votes up there, you have until June 17, 2017 to return the book or raise dissatisfaction with the seller. If you wait until June 18, 2017, you cannot nominate to the PL because there was no actionable transaction failure...you didn't ask to return the book in time. If you ask to return the book on May 27, 2017 and the seller does not respond, there's your transaction failure and you have until May 27, 2018 to nominate that seller to the PL (based on our vote in point 3 up there). Again, to give this traction, we need to decide on #2 AND #3, separately. If we decided 6 months for #2 and 2 years for #3, things would be just as clear to operationalize...whatever...

You're commingling again. The PL statute of limitations (aka "generalized cut off time") would not begin running until the point of transaction failure. For a seller who has a specified return time frame, the transaction failure doesn't occur until buyer presents the item for return within the specified time frame, and seller does not execute properly...then, the PL statute of limitations begins. For a seller who does not specify a return time frame or a duration on their "guarantee", this is trickier. But the trick is in deciding how long returns should be allowed if the policy is unstated (this relates to point #2 in my post up there from early this morning). Suppose we hypothetically decide that an unstated return policy leads to a default return window of one year. Then, if you make your return claim in month 11 of that window and the seller doesn't respond, the PL statute of limitations begins running from that point. Suppose we decide that an unstated return policy equates to a lifetime return window. Then, the PL statute clock wouldn't start running until you make your return claim and the seller doesn't respond, whenever that might be. But, ironing this out requires us to take a position on what an unstated return policy equates to...which is separate from the PL statute of limitations. Am I making sense here? Perhaps I need to do another example.

It is the determination of the "PL deadline" (or whether we should have one at all) that is on the table for discussion...we don't presently have a "PL deadline". I think you meant to say "....bothered to bring up a non-delivery issue with a seller within a reasonable timeframe after the transaction failure...." By PL deadline I meant the 30 days that have to pass before you can nominate someone for the PL. Ah... (thumbs u

It is the determination of the "PL deadline" (or whether we should have one at all) that is on the table for discussion...we don't presently have a "PL deadline". I think you meant to say "....bothered to bring up a non-delivery issue with a seller within a reasonable timeframe after the transaction failure...."

To help us move along this particular discussion regarding the PL statute of limitations, I am going to offer a hypothetical example that has nothing to do with return policies or restoration guarantees. My example will involve the most basic of failed transactions that would qualify for a PL nomination - seller simply never ships the book after payment is received from the buyer. For the love of my home state of Georgia, or whatever it is that you personally hold dear, can we please stay on point with this for a little while? Here comes my example...I'm going to hypothetically pick on Rupp, since he started this Base Scenario: I purchase a book from Rupp out of one of his Clooneyfests on May 25, 2015, and I pay him immediately (for this discussion, it doesn't matter whether it's a $1 book or a $10,000 book). He simply never ships me the book I paid for. For this discussion, it doesn't matter whether he has been communicating with me or ignoring me. Fact is that I paid for a book and he has never sent the book to me. I'm out the money I paid him, and I don't have the book, period. Now, I'm going to iterate through some subsequent cases: Case 1: two months after purchase (i.e., on July 25, 2015), I come into the PL discussion thread and announce my intentions to follow the PL nomination protocol and put Rupp on the PL. I presume you would all say 'proceed' Case 2: I've been too busy to think about Rupp and my comic book for awhile, but it comes back to the forefront of my mind six months after purchase. So, on November 25, 2015, I give Rupp a Thanksgiving present and nominate him for the PL. I presume you would still all say 'proceed' Case 3: I've been really busy. I procrastinate, but finally decide I can't let this slide. Seventeen months after the purchase (i.e., October 25, 2016), I come into the PL discussion thread and nominate Rupp for failure to send me the book I purchased way back in May of last year. You might say...'well, OK, but why did you wait so long?' Like I said, I've been busy. Case 4: I've been really, really, really busy, or incarcerated, or incapacitated...whatever. FIVE YEARS after the purchase (i.e., on May 25, 2020), I come into the PL discussion thread and say that I want to add Rupp to the PL for failure to send me the book I purchased from him five years ago. What would you all say? When would you all say 'well Ed, sorry, but too much time has passed (since the transaction failure) for you to make an issue out of this for purposes of the probation list'? 10 years? 15 years? Ever? This is the essence of the PL statute of limitations discussion. Let's try to have this discussion without commingling it with the return policy/resto guarantee discussion...it really is a separate discussion. Thoughts?

Well said. Except this isn't a data-rich, scientific expedition, where minutiae matters and makes a difference. You're all talking about trying to make rules that cover every possible permutation of human behavior as a buyer/seller on these boards, and it's simply not possible to do that without strangling the entire thing to death in the process. Well, that's not the way I see this discussion, and (at least from my view) we are not trying to arrive at rules that cover every possible permutation (I agree that we should not do that). For example, delving into this minutiae around Rupp's case has helped to ferret out three very high level principles that are worthy of being ferreted out: 1) Shouldn't sellers here be able to set their own return policies without having a blanket return policy dictated to them? (n.b. in fact this principle is freeing, not strangling); 2) If a seller fails to state a specific return policy, what do we do for purposes of PL discussions, etc.? 3) What should be the statute of limitations for bringing a PL case after a failed transaction (a stand-alone question...failed transaction might relate to a seller's return policy, or might relate to a host of other transaction failures) It took some delving into the minutiae to get these three big picture items up on the table for discussion. That was my (our) point up there.

This is exactly right. I never thought anyone was suggesting that we have a mandatory return policy...or whenever I sensed that someone was implying that, I tried to point out that they were confusing the issues.... The real issues being 1) what do we do if a seller fails to state a return policy, which leaves things subject to debating "reasonableness", and 2) how long should someone have to bring forth a PL nomination after a transaction transgression (which is a completely separate issue from that of the return policy)

I assume you are talking about a time frame for returns as opposed to a time frame for nominating someone for the PL. I'm not sure anyone was trying to force a specific return policy on sellers. Kind of one in the same isn't it ? No

Well said.