PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[Speedy-D]

And the failicy of the list rules becomes ever clearer.

You replied to John R's post, is that the failicy you're talking about?

[bababooey]

Our concern with PL removal seems to derail the nomination process - completing the deal & warning the community are the two key components to the PL process, we should consider both during the nomination process.

 

The nominating sellers are free of any obligation to hold items for the buyer once the 30 day time limit has passed on unpaid items. I don't feel the nominator needs to share whether they are willing to complete the transaction, the implied goal of the PL process is completing the deal, most of us understand that.

 

Speculation on removal is a "what if" discussion, it's premature because nominators are sharing too much information - we don't need to know what you'll do & neither does the nominee - an unwillingness to complete the deal doesn't invalidate a nomination but telling everyone your intentions causes speculative discussions & gives the nominee a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

IF the nominee does come forward, wants to complete the deal & the seller won't - rescinding the nomination or removing them from the PL seems reasonable but we shouldn't even discuss "removal criteria" until the nominee (who is usually AWOL) makes an appearance.

 

Edited August 9, 2013 by bababooey

[gojira]

You probably don't want to hear this but if you put him on the PL, the usual method by which he would make good would be by sending you the money to complete the sale.

 

Right. My understanding is that if you don't allow him to complete the deal, then you can't put him on the probation list. Completing a deal is the way for deadbeat buyers (and sellers) to get off the list.

 

So, you can refuse to sell to him -- given 30 days passed without his paying -- but in that case you can't put him on the probation list. Or you can put him on the probation list, but then you have to be willing to complete the deal with him, after which he would come off the list.

 

I'm a little cofused here. I do not want to hold the books for him for months in hope that he will eventually come forward to close the deal. After all he is at fault here, since he did not complete our transaction by payment for the books.

I want to be able to offer the books in my next sales thread. This will not be possible if he's put on the probation list, since you stated that I should be willing to complete the deal with him.

 

Then let's not put him on the probation list. This way I can sell the books.

 

What if he decides that he finally wants to go through with the deal in let's say a month or so? Imagine he just paypals me the money for the books, but that I have sold them in that time. Then he can probably put me on the probation list, because I don't have the books anymore. Weird, don't you think?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

[Iceman399]

You probably don't want to hear this but if you put him on the PL, the usual method by which he would make good would be by sending you the money to complete the sale.

 

Right. My understanding is that if you don't allow him to complete the deal, then you can't put him on the probation list. Completing a deal is the way for deadbeat buyers (and sellers) to get off the list.

 

So, you can refuse to sell to him -- given 30 days passed without his paying -- but in that case you can't put him on the probation list. Or you can put him on the probation list, but then you have to be willing to complete the deal with him, after which he would come off the list.

 

I'm a little cofused here. I do not want to hold the books for him for months in hope that he will eventually come forward to close the deal. After all he is at fault here, since he did not complete our transaction by payment for the books.

I want to be able to offer the books in my next sales thread. This will not be possible if he's put on the probation list, since you stated that I should be willing to complete the deal with him.

 

Then let's not put him on the probation list. This way I can sell the books.

 

What if he decides that he finally wants to go through with the deal in let's say a month or so? Imagine he just paypals me the money for the books, but that I have sold them in that time. Then he can probably put me on the probation list, because I don't have the books anymore. Weird, don't you think?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

Once the 48hrs is up from the PM you sent him telling him you were nominating him for the PL list he is able to be put up. After that point you have zero obligation to hold the books and can sell them as the 30 day rule has already passed (July 27th). This means you can sell away. One thing though is down the road the buyer may want to make good on his promise breaking and try and get back into the good books of the boards. One way many do this is either make a donation to a charity, send x amount of money to the individual (If you lose $40 on the deal then sending you the $40 bucks shows they are trying to make good) etc. The PL is not a place to stake someone and not let them ever come back, there needs to be ways for individuals who up to make it right again.

[crassus]

 

What if he decides that he finally wants to go through with the deal in let's say a month or so? Imagine he just paypals me the money for the books, but that I have sold them in that time. Then he can probably put me on the probation list, because I don't have the books anymore. Weird, don't you think?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

 

I'm assuming based on your previous posts that you have already informed him that the books are no longer available to him to purchase, yes?

 

Keep all your PM discussions and remember that the PL thread is also a record and a resource. In the unlikely event that he comes back months from now looking for the books (extremely unlikely IMO) and complains here in the PL thread, there is absolutely no chance, given the record, that you would be put on the list.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Our concern with PL removal seems to derail the nomination process - completing the deal & warning the community are the two key components to the PL process, we should consider both during the nomination process.

 

The nominating sellers are free of any obligation to hold items for the buyer once the 30 day time limit has passed on unpaid items. I don't feel the nominator needs to share whether they are willing to complete the transaction, the implied goal of the PL process is completing the deal, most of us understand that.

 

Speculation on removal is a "what if" discussion, it's premature because nominators are sharing too much information - we don't need to know what you'll do & neither does the nominee - an unwillingness to complete the deal doesn't invalidate a nomination but telling everyone your intentions causes speculative discussions & gives the nominee a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

IF the nominee does come forward, wants to complete the deal & the seller won't - rescinding the nomination or removing them from the PL seems reasonable but we shouldn't even discuss "removal criteria" until the nominee (who is usually AWOL) makes an appearance.

 

 

Well put.

[comicdonna]

You probably don't want to hear this but if you put him on the PL, the usual method by which he would make good would be by sending you the money to complete the sale.

 

Right. My understanding is that if you don't allow him to complete the deal, then you can't put him on the probation list. Completing a deal is the way for deadbeat buyers (and sellers) to get off the list.

 

So, you can refuse to sell to him -- given 30 days passed without his paying -- but in that case you can't put him on the probation list. Or you can put him on the probation list, but then you have to be willing to complete the deal with him, after which he would come off the list.

 

I'm a little cofused here. I do not want to hold the books for him for months in hope that he will eventually come forward to close the deal. After all he is at fault here, since he did not complete our transaction by payment for the books.

I want to be able to offer the books in my next sales thread. This will not be possible if he's put on the probation list, since you stated that I should be willing to complete the deal with him.

 

Then let's not put him on the probation list. This way I can sell the books.

 

What if he decides that he finally wants to go through with the deal in let's say a month or so? Imagine he just paypals me the money for the books, but that I have sold them in that time. Then he can probably put me on the probation list, because I don't have the books anymore. Weird, don't you think?

 

Cheers

 

Mike

 

You can (and should) have him added to the probation list. You can still sell your books, and won't be put on the list for doing so.

[A.Romeo]

I see too many issues like this related to the PL and I fully understand the frustration of having to deal with someone who drags their feet. My advice is to include a timeframe in your sales thread that payment needs to be made by. I know mine going forward will include payment must be made 3 days after I send the buyer an invoice, or I will have the right to cancel the deal if I choose.

 

This will override the 30 day rule if a seller specifically states payment timeframes in the rules correct?

[bababooey]

I see too many issues like this related to the PL and I fully understand the frustration of having to deal with someone who drags their feet. My advice is to include a timeframe in your sales thread that payment needs to be made by. I know mine going forward will include payment must be made 3 days after I send the buyer an invoice, or I will have the right to cancel the deal if I choose.

 

This will override the 30 day rule if a seller specifically states payment timeframes in the rules correct?

Does it allow you out of the deal so you can sell it elsewhere? Yes.

 

Does it give you the power to nominate someone to the PL less than a week after he posted "take it" on one of your books? My personal opinion would be yes, presuming it's a clean & clear situation - I'd consider it the same as someone posting a "take it" then telling you he is not completing the transaction. (waiving 30 day rule)

 

However...I'm not sure what the board consensus is on this type of nomination. The best approach in some of these things is to consider all your options before you move forward with nominating someone here (including letting it go) - take into consideration that you chose to strictly limit the time frame & expect that not all people will see things your way.

 

Once you've decided to bring it here......ride it out within reason, don't post quick flippant responses, don't change your position at the suggestion of others or give up if one or two guys disagree with you. Keep in mind, many of us who post here threw rocks at beehives when we were bored kids to "see what would happen".

 

[crassus]

I see too many issues like this related to the PL and I fully understand the frustration of having to deal with someone who drags their feet. My advice is to include a timeframe in your sales thread that payment needs to be made by. I know mine going forward will include payment must be made 3 days after I send the buyer an invoice, or I will have the right to cancel the deal if I choose.

 

This will override the 30 day rule if a seller specifically states payment timeframes in the rules correct?

Does it allow you out of the deal so you can sell it elsewhere? Yes.

 

Does it give you the power to nominate someone to the PL less than a week after he posted "take it" on one of your books? My personal opinion would be yes, presuming it's a clean & clear situation - I'd consider it the same as someone posting a "take it" then telling you he is not completing the transaction. (waiving 30 day rule)

 

However...I'm not sure what the board consensus is on this type of nomination. The best approach in some of these things is to consider all your options before you move forward with nominating someone here (including letting it go) - take into consideration that you chose to strictly limit the time frame & expect that not all people will see things your way.

 

Once you've decided to bring it here......ride it out within reason, don't post quick flippant responses, don't change your position at the suggestion of others or give up if one or two guys disagree with you. Keep in mind, many of us who post here threw rocks at beehives when we were bored kids to "see what would happen".

 

 

Good advice. But part of what I take to be the spirit of the 30 day rule is that it allows a reasonable amount of time for most people to get a deal done. It already assumes, I think, that payment is due as soon as the buyer receives an invoice. Therefore I'm not sure that specific time payment demands (eg. payment due in 3 days) have any impact on the 30 day rule.

 

If the 30 day rule is read so as to assume that there is a delay in payment, the 30 days is significant as a necessary minimum time for the parties to work it out before going to court (the PL)

 

The 30 day rule could then be read as an expression of that old idea that it is better to reconcile with your brother before going to court. If after 30 days you cannot reconcile, than its off to court.

[Speedy-D]

Our concern with PL removal seems to derail the nomination process - completing the deal & warning the community are the two key components to the PL process, we should consider both during the nomination process.

 

The nominating sellers are free of any obligation to hold items for the buyer once the 30 day time limit has passed on unpaid items. I don't feel the nominator needs to share whether they are willing to complete the transaction, the implied goal of the PL process is completing the deal, most of us understand that.

 

Speculation on removal is a "what if" discussion, it's premature because nominators are sharing too much information - we don't need to know what you'll do & neither does the nominee - an unwillingness to complete the deal doesn't invalidate a nomination but telling everyone your intentions causes speculative discussions & gives the nominee a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

IF the nominee does come forward, wants to complete the deal & the seller won't - rescinding the nomination or removing them from the PL seems reasonable but we shouldn't even discuss "removal criteria" until the nominee (who is usually AWOL) makes an appearance.

 

I'm 100% with this!! (thumbs u

[thehumantorch]

Our concern with PL removal seems to derail the nomination process - completing the deal & warning the community are the two key components to the PL process, we should consider both during the nomination process.

 

The nominating sellers are free of any obligation to hold items for the buyer once the 30 day time limit has passed on unpaid items. I don't feel the nominator needs to share whether they are willing to complete the transaction, the implied goal of the PL process is completing the deal, most of us understand that.

 

Speculation on removal is a "what if" discussion, it's premature because nominators are sharing too much information - we don't need to know what you'll do & neither does the nominee - an unwillingness to complete the deal doesn't invalidate a nomination but telling everyone your intentions causes speculative discussions & gives the nominee a 'get out of jail free' card.

 

IF the nominee does come forward, wants to complete the deal & the seller won't - rescinding the nomination or removing them from the PL seems reasonable but we shouldn't even discuss "removal criteria" until the nominee (who is usually AWOL) makes an appearance.

 

I'm 100% with this!! (thumbs u

Agreed, it's well put.

[Sqeggs]

I see too many issues like this related to the PL and I fully understand the frustration of having to deal with someone who drags their feet. My advice is to include a timeframe in your sales thread that payment needs to be made by. I know mine going forward will include payment must be made 3 days after I send the buyer an invoice, or I will have the right to cancel the deal if I choose.

 

This will override the 30 day rule if a seller specifically states payment timeframes in the rules correct?

Does it allow you out of the deal so you can sell it elsewhere? Yes.

 

Does it give you the power to nominate someone to the PL less than a week after he posted "take it" on one of your books? My personal opinion would be yes, presuming it's a clean & clear situation - I'd consider it the same as someone posting a "take it" then telling you he is not completing the transaction. (waiving 30 day rule)

 

However...I'm not sure what the board consensus is on this type of nomination. The best approach in some of these things is to consider all your options before you move forward with nominating someone here (including letting it go) - take into consideration that you chose to strictly limit the time frame & expect that not all people will see things your way.

 

Once you've decided to bring it here......ride it out within reason, don't post quick flippant responses, don't change your position at the suggestion of others or give up if one or two guys disagree with you. Keep in mind, many of us who post here threw rocks at beehives when we were bored kids to "see what would happen".

 

 

I would say that if you put a specific period to be paid in your TOS, then you are free to relist the book if the buyer fails to come through in the allotted time. I don't think, though, that you should be able to nominate the buyer for the PL until the 30 days are up.

 

I suppose that even if you sold the book, so you aren't looking for the buyer to finish the deal, you could still bandy his name on this thread. If people start doing that kind of thing, though, this thread starts to become a sort of backdoor feedback thread.

 

I'm in favor of feedback threads -- although I realize they are a dead issue -- but I don't know if we want the PL thread to be the place where people gripe about a deal where the details are such -- as in this case -- that actually putting someone on the PL isn't going to happen.

 

On the other hand ... maybe we do want posts like that in this thread....

[bababooey]

So here's my case

 

My literal interpretation is that a "3 day payment rule" in a seller's thread is a clear term of sale, a failure to pay in three days is a "refusal" as per 1c) of the PL rules

 

Seller says "pay in three days" - clear terms

Someone buys (accepting terms) and doesn't pay (refusal)

 

I think it fits, I know it doesn't fit into the spirit of the grace period to resolve issues but I think that rule, if applied this way, allows for the suspension of the 30 day rule. I'm just putting it out there for discussion.

 

 

[crassus]

So here's my case

 

My literal interpretation is that a "3 day payment rule" in a seller's thread is a clear term of sale, a failure to pay in three days is a "refusal" as per 1c) of the PL rules

 

Seller says "pay in three days" - clear terms

Someone buys (accepting terms) and doesn't pay (refusal)

 

I think it fits, I know it doesn't fit into the spirit of the grace period to resolve issues but I think that rule, if applied this way, allows for the suspension of the 30 day rule. I'm just putting it out there for discussion.

 

 

I understand. I think the only possible difficulty is that you are equating a failure to pay in three days (as a term of sale, for example) with a "refusal to complete the transaction", and these technically can be two different things. Refusal to me suggests conscious rejection, rather than a lapse of memory or judgment on the buyer's part.

[Iceman399]

Also some invoice when a thread is completed vs daily etc. Who is to say that one may be available 7 days from now and not in the middle of nowhere camping.

Edited August 10, 2013 by iceman399

[jsilverjanet]

Had a recent issue with a transaction with seller on the boards

 

He sold me 2 copies of Avengers 55 without pics. Prior to sending payment he sent me pics of the books. Books were graded both as VG/F I sent payment via check.

 

7 days after sending payment I decided I wanted out of the deal. I offered $50 as payment for any lost time. He refused and said a deal was a deal. I said ok.

 

I received the books a few days later and found one of the books had a tear on the cover and tape on the inside of the book. When I went back to look at the pics that he had sent me via PM, those pics had been removed. I contacted the seller and asked if he knew of the tape. He said he did not but felt the comic still was in the grade he sold them to me. I disagreed and seller refused and said I only wanted a refund because I initially said I wanted out of the deal and was using this as an excuse to get my money back.

 

Tape is a 4 letter word in this community. Failure to acknowledge it prior to a sale whether intentional or unintentional is a big error. At minimum I should have received a partial refund. I believe that the seller would have refunded money to any other buyer but refused to me because of his belief that I was using it as an excuse.

 

Bottom line for me is we all buy and sell here as a whole. I may need to buy something from you tomorrow and sell you something next week, if we cant work things out and accept when we've made a mistake then we shouldn't be on these boards selling and buying under the pretense of collectors.

Edited August 14, 2013 by jsilverjanet

[crassus]

Were you asking for a refund only for the 1 book with tape, or for both?

[jsilverjanet]

Were you asking for a refund only for the 1 book with tape, or for both?

 

only for the one book - second book was fine and would have kept it.

[Ryan.]

Had a recent issue with a transaction with seller on the boards

 

He sold me 2 copies of Avengers 55 without pics. Prior to sending payment he sent me pics of the books. Books were graded both as VG/F I sent payment via check.

 

7 days after sending payment I decided I wanted out of the deal. I offered $50 as payment for any lost time. He refused and said a deal was a deal. I said ok.

 

I received the books a few days later and found one of the books had a tear on the cover and tape on the inside of the book. When I went back to look at the pics that he had sent me via PM, those pics had been removed. I contacted the seller and asked if he knew of the tape. He said he did not but felt the comic still was in the grade he sold them to me. I disagreed and seller refused and said I only wanted a refund because I initially said I wanted out of the deal and was using this as an excuse to get my money back.

 

Tape is a 4 letter word in this community. Failure to acknowledge it prior to a sale whether intentional or unintentional is a big error. At minimum I should have received a partial refund. I believe that the seller would have refunded money to any other buyer but refused to me because of his belief that I was using it as an excuse.

 

Bottom line for me is we all buy and sell here as a whole. I may need to buy something from you tomorrow and sell you something next week, if we cant work things out and accept when we've made a mistake then we shouldn't be on these boards selling and buying under the pretense of collectors.

 

I do see both sides of this. You did try to back out of a deal after it was agreed upon and you even sent a check. That's a little odd but at least you offered to compensate him. He probably should have not forced you to keep the deal but it's not a requirement. From the seller's perspective it does seem a little fishy but he probably should have offered a refund for the undisclosed tape, though that could depend on the language written into the sale terms (no returns, etc.). What I'm not understanding is your desire for a partial refund when you were going to offer $50 for, essentially, nothing. How much do you want the refund to be? Are Avengers 55s in that grade really selling for that much?

 

Frankly, I'm not seeing the seller as being eligible for probation. Being difficult doesn't make him a PLer unless he broke stated terms related to the sale (maybe he did, I don't know what those terms were). Should he refund the money upon return of the books? Yeah, probably. Does he have reason to be suspicious of your motivations after you tried to back out of a deal a week after sending payment? Yeah, probably.

 

My advice? Put the seller on your do-not-conduct-business-with list and move on.