PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[HarveySwick]

 

[MetalPSI]

I want one of those huge telephones at their feet

[bcc]

Having never done this before, is this the thread where I post comments about a board person who agreed to purchase two books, agreed to the price, then said later I'll pass, read all my PMs after, then removed himself from the discussion?

I have all the PMs etc but not sure what to post or where or how to do hyperlinks?

 

Thanks for advice.

 

i'm not sure posting PMs immediately is the way to go. lay out the facts and go from there.

 

All right, here are the facts:

 

Xela posted a WTB ad for a SSS 6, I sent a PM with pics of a CGC copy and a raw copy, $350 & $125 respectively. He asked if I would take $450 shipped to the UK. I replied I would do $450 but wouldn't pay postage to the UK as it could be $50-$60. I'd pay the 1st $20 and he would have to pay the rest.

He replied that's OK and he would take them and sent his address.

I replied back that after packing the books and checking on usps.com that shipping was $63 for Priority Express International insured for $400; so his total would be $493

He replied back that he wasn't sure how it came to $63 since another boardie had just sent him a slab and several raw books for $25.

I sent him package dimensions and weight and said to check usps.com and LMK if I made a mistake and that I'd check again when I got home.

I checked again and sent him the 3 quotes from usps: Priority Express Int w/insurance for $63; Priority Int w/certificate of mailing for $53; and 1st class w/certificate of mailing for $31. I said I can't be responsible for the latter 2 as they can only be insured for up to $70. It was his choice on shipping.

 

He then replied that he would pass. No other explaination.

 

I replied that he had already said he would take them AFTER I had said the postage would probably be in the $50-$60 range.

 

He read that PM with no reply. I sent another PM asking if he always backed out of deals and wanted a response. He read it and removed himself from the topic.

 

I realize it has not been 30 days but his actions have demonstrated he won't complete a transaction he agreed to.

 

I'm also sending him a separate PM letting him know I've posted on here.

Let me know if I've left anything out.

[jaybuck43]

To me, as its written, it sounds like you had a deal. He agreed that it would be cost minus 20 dollars. While you suggested it would run somewhere around 50-60 total, that was not a term of the deal. It was whatever cost was. Definitely a broken deal unless we hear otherwise from xela's side of things (though you may wish to post PMs to show the transaction so we can see exact language used throughout)

[EC ed]

I've been thinking about this bcc-Xela thing in its broader context. While I suppose you could technically say that a "deal" was reached (albeit, there is a slight bit of ambiguity here), I'm not sure how comfortable I am with using the PL mechanism to force a buyer into completing a deal while the deal is still in its initial stages (I can see buyer failure as PL-worthy if the seller waits for a buyer on a clearly defined deal and loses money/opportunity, like with a hot book or something, but I don't see that here). I'm not saying Xela did or did not screw up here, but....

 

Rhetorically:

 

@bcc: What are you really "out" here? A little time and aggravation from a PM interaction and checking postage rates? Do you really want Xela to buy books he's decided he doesn't want? Do you have a return policy (if not, why not)? What if you "force" the transaction, ship the books to him in the UK, and then he decides to return them to you? Why bother? Is the PL really necessary here? Why not just put Xela on your personal list (if you think that's appropriate) and move on?

 

Generally, it seems that the spirit of the PL "transaction failure" condition applies to transactions that are agreed to without ambiguity and then reneged upon, resulting in someone losing monetary value. Usually, I think this applies most clearly to seller failure, like when payment is made by the buyer and seller subsequently fails to perform. As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

Applying these thoughts to the bcc-Xela situation...unless I'm missing something, I don't see it as PL-worthy...more of a personal mess list thing.

 

 

 

 

[Number 6]

 

Rhetorically:

 

@bcc: What are you really "out" here? A little time and aggravation from a PM interaction and checking postage rates? Do you really want Xela to buy books he's decided he doesn't want? Do you have a return policy (if not, why not)? What if you "force" the transaction, ship the books to him in the UK, and then he decides to return them to you? Why bother? Is the PL really necessary here? Why not just put Xela on your personal list (if you think that's appropriate) and move on?

 

These questions could be asked of any transaction where the buyer claims and then fails to follow through. Why are they more relevant in this situation?

 

Generally, it seems that the spirit of the PL "transaction failure" condition applies to transactions that are agreed to without ambiguity and then reneged upon, resulting in someone losing monetary value. Usually, I think this applies most clearly to seller failure, like when payment is made by the buyer and seller subsequently fails to perform. As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

Applying these thoughts to the bcc-Xela situation...unless I'm missing something, I don't see it as PL-worthy...more of a personal mess list thing.

 

 

So the PL should only apply to wayward sellers?

[EC ed]

So the PL should only apply to wayward sellers?

 

Didn't say that. Did you read (and internalize) this part?:

 

I can see buyer failure as PL-worthy if the seller waits for a buyer on a clearly defined deal and loses money/opportunity

 

As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

"harder to come by" is a relative statement

[asteroid-comix]

I've been thinking about this bcc-Xela thing in its broader context. While I suppose you could technically say that a "deal" was reached (albeit, there is a slight bit of ambiguity here), I'm not sure how comfortable I am with using the PL mechanism to force a buyer into completing a deal while the deal is still in its initial stages (I can see buyer failure as PL-worthy if the seller waits for a buyer on a clearly defined deal and loses money/opportunity, like with a hot book or something, but I don't see that here). I'm not saying Xela did or did not screw up here, but....

 

Rhetorically:

 

@bcc: What are you really "out" here? A little time and aggravation from a PM interaction and checking postage rates? Do you really want Xela to buy books he's decided he doesn't want? Do you have a return policy (if not, why not)? What if you "force" the transaction, ship the books to him in the UK, and then he decides to return them to you? Why bother? Is the PL really necessary here? Why not just put Xela on your personal list (if you think that's appropriate) and move on?

 

Generally, it seems that the spirit of the PL "transaction failure" condition applies to transactions that are agreed to without ambiguity and then reneged upon, resulting in someone losing monetary value. Usually, I think this applies most clearly to seller failure, like when payment is made by the buyer and seller subsequently fails to perform. As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

Applying these thoughts to the bcc-Xela situation...unless I'm missing something, I don't see it as PL-worthy...more of a personal mess list thing.

 

 

 

 

PL worthy as written unless Xela has some other version of the story and can provide facts to support.

 

Claim a book, agree to a deal, or anything that commits you to a transaction is PL worthy if you later back out without agreement by the seller.

 

 

[Number 6]

So the PL should only apply to wayward sellers?

 

Didn't say that. Did you read (and internalize) this part?:

 

I can see buyer failure as PL-worthy if the seller waits for a buyer on a clearly defined deal and loses money/opportunity

 

As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

"harder to come by" is a relative statement

 

Why are they are "harder to come by"?

 

Where did the requirement that there has to be a substantial amount of time waisted and/or potential money lost before it qualifies for the PL come from? And who gets to decide how much is enough?

 

I thought the requirements for qualifying for the PL are the Board buying and selling rules. According to those rules a buyer has an obligation to follow through on a purchase in a timely manner. There's no indication that if there's a certain amount of time invested or money involved that puts the transaction in a different category.

[EC ed]

PL worthy as written unless Xela has some other version of the story and can provide facts to support.

 

Claim a book, agree to a deal, or anything that commits you to a transaction is PL worthy if you later back out without agreement by the seller.

 

So, I suppose my thought piece there was basically asking whether this type of situation being in the PL domain was what we wanted our culture here to be.

 

Really? This scenario (albeit not that swift on Xela's part) arising from a PL discussion stemming from a WTB thread, should get Xela on the PL?

 

That's a hard- line to take, but OK

 

I suppose this is getting us back towards a discussion about what should be the scope of the PL (and whether it has gotten watered down)...that discussion didn't make it very far last time around...

[jaybuck43]

edowens71, I don't see this as an attempt to force a transaction that was in its initial stages. There was a deal in place (Sell the books for xxx and ship to UK) According to BCC, he even said "I'll take it" Then xela decided to drop out of the deal. If it had been a flat shipping cost and the same actions happened, would you consider it a busted deal then or not? (I.e. if his cost was $425+15 shipping and Xela said and then later pmed and said "Never mind".)

 

Now separately, for many sellers here, this is an annoyance, and they would let the buyer out and just add them to their annoying/do no deal with list and that would be the end of it. However not everyone feels that way, and the PL list is designed for busted deals, on both sides, even if none is really "out" anything.

[boomtown]

Obviously the deal meets the probation list criteria, but why force an unhappy buyer to complete the transaction. Seller thought the postage would be $50-$60, buyer thought it would be around $25 (Meaning his cost $5). That's where the deal fell apart at, not because the buyer was trying to pull a fast one, not because he can't be trusted.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

I replied I would do $450 but wouldn't pay postage to the UK as it could be $50-$60. I'd pay the 1st $20 and he would have to pay the rest.

 

I replied back that after packing the books and checking on usps.com that shipping was $63 for Priority Express International insured for $400;

 

Only issue is, insurance is seller's responsibility, not buyer's, unless specifically agreed

[oakman29]

If buyer is not prepared to pay extra for an international shipment,don't post the I'll take it. Simple really!

[jaybuck43]

I replied I would do $450 but wouldn't pay postage to the UK as it could be $50-$60. I'd pay the 1st $20 and he would have to pay the rest.

 

I replied back that after packing the books and checking on usps.com that shipping was $63 for Priority Express International insured for $400;

 

Only issue is, insurance is seller's responsibility, not buyer's, unless specifically agreed

 

I would agree with you to an extent except for this:

I checked again and sent him the 3 quotes from usps: Priority Express Int w/insurance for $63; Priority Int w/certificate of mailing for $53; and 1st class w/certificate of mailing for $31. I said I can't be responsible for the latter 2 as they can only be insured for up to $70. It was his choice on shipping.

 

He gave the buyer several alternatives to get the price down.

[boomtown]

If buyer is not prepared to pay extra for an international shipment,don't post the I'll take it. Simple really!

 

Yeah, but it's really not that simple. As stated previously, the buyer has already had books sent at $25 so, in his mind, he thought the shipping would be closer to $25 then $65.

 

Which in fact it would, if not for the insurance that the seller was requiring. Was that mentioned up front that insurance would be paid by the buyer? We don't know, so not really that simple.

[H0RR0RSH0W]

Only issue is, insurance is seller's responsibility, not buyer's, unless specifically agreed

 

 

 

I am not usually involved in probation discussions and I do not have anything involved but I am not so sure this is probation list worthy.

 

First the buyer politely backed out of the deal. Clearly resigned,but not reneged. They did not like the conditions of the sale.

 

Second the deal was struck but the 2 parties could not agree to shipping terms.

 

Finally the above quote does make a valid point as the buyer appears to have made more of an attempt to compromise than the seller.

 

 

Perhaps a strike or two is in order for the buyer, but in all fairness I would limit it there.

 

[Number 6]

So the PL should only apply to wayward sellers?

 

Didn't say that. Did you read (and internalize) this part?:

 

I can see buyer failure as PL-worthy if the seller waits for a buyer on a clearly defined deal and loses money/opportunity

 

As I allude to above, the circumstances where buyer failure "should" result in a PL nomination seem harder to come by, especially when you think about practical return policy implications.

 

As far as "internalizing" what was said - particularly the part in bold: I get the concept of the return policy catch-22 on dead-beat buyers.

 

Believe me, I've thought about how I would handle a delinquent buyer here on the boards. Between the expense of an immediate return and/or holding on to books indefinitely so the buyer had a way off the list, honestly I don't think I ever would nominate a buyer for the PL. Just put them on my personal list and move on.

 

But that's me.

 

If a transaction meets the criteria for a PL nomination, I don't think it's my place to tell them that their nomination doesn't qualify because I personally wouldn't mess with it, or because I don't think they've experienced enough fiscal 'pain and suffering'.

[boomtown]

I replied I would do $450 but wouldn't pay postage to the UK as it could be $50-$60. I'd pay the 1st $20 and he would have to pay the rest.

 

I replied back that after packing the books and checking on usps.com that shipping was $63 for Priority Express International insured for $400;

 

Only issue is, insurance is seller's responsibility, not buyer's, unless specifically agreed

 

I would agree with you to an extent except for this:

I checked again and sent him the 3 quotes from usps: Priority Express Int w/insurance for $63; Priority Int w/certificate of mailing for $53; and 1st class w/certificate of mailing for $31. I said I can't be responsible for the latter 2 as they can only be insured for up to $70. It was his choice on shipping.

 

He gave the buyer several alternatives to get the price down.

 

Well, he gave him 3 quotes & told him he was basically screwed if he choose either of the last 2 options.

[oakman29]

If buyer is not prepared to pay extra for an international shipment,don't post the I'll take it. Simple really!

 

Yeah, but it's really not that simple. As stated previously, the buyer has already had books sent at $25 so, in his mind, he thought the shipping would be closer to $25 then $65.

 

Which in fact it would, if not for the insurance that the seller was requiring. Was that mentioned up front that insurance would be paid by the buyer? We don't know, so not really that simple.

 

 

Buyers going to blow a deal over shipping?