PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[HarveySwick]

Look at the line 3 lines above what you have in red.

 

If the buyer is supremely confident that it's going to cost no more than $25, doesn't he have an obligation to clearly state that before he says he'll take it? Especially when the estimate is so much more and is clearly going to be a deal breaker for him?

 

 

Like I said - I'd have to see the initial PM exchange. Did bcc say he was or was not familiar with shipping packages to the UK?

 

 

bcc: Sure, $450 works, but I can't cover shipping costs. I haven't shipped a lot of things overseas, but I've heard it's expensive. I can cover $20 but I'm worried it could be much more: even $40 - $60.

Xela: No worries, I've bought from numerous people and it's always cost me around $25.

 

.........

 

Completed deal with clear and specific terms? Yes/no?

 

Communication was clearly lacking on both sides because when the terms did became clear:

 

bcc: I just got back from USPS (or looked online). I was told it's going to be $63 shipped. PayPal me and I'll have it shipped.

Xela: Woh! Why so much? Like I said, I was thinking it was $25?

bcc: You're responsible for insurance. If you want to forgo insurance, I can ship the book cheaper, but you're on the hook if it gets lost.

Xela: thanks, but I'll respectfully pass.

 

Probation List worthy?

Edited May 17, 2015 by HarveySwick

[Shark]

Hi everyone,

 

Firstly I don't think I was obstructing a sales thread of bcc.

 

I said I'd pass on the books because I feel the shipping was extortionate. I've had multiple books (slabbed and raw) sent from the USA and it was only $20. So I don't feel giving him an extra $40 on shipping + giving him way over GPA on the slabbed book is fair..

 

I think bcc is trying to get me on the probation list for the sake of it.

 

Cheers

 

I've shipped a lot of packages overseas that cost less than $25.00 to ship. What you need to remember is that is usually via 1st Class Mail International envelope or box where no insurance is included. Bcc was quoting you Priority International prices with insurance included which is a lot higher than 1st Class Mail International.

[The-Collector]

 

Like I said - I'd have to see the initial PM exchange. Did bcc say he was or was not familiar with shipping packages to the UK?

 

 

bcc: Sure, $450 works, but I can't cover shipping costs. I haven't shipped a lot of things overseas, but I've heard it's expensive. I can cover $20 but I'm worried it could be much more: even $40 - $60.

Xela: No worries, I've bought from numerous people and it's always cost me around $25.

 

.........

 

Completed deal with clear and specific terms? Yes/no?

 

Communication was clearly lacking on both sides because when the terms did became clear:

 

bcc: I just got back from USPS (or looked online). I was told it's going to be $63 shipped. PayPal me and I'll have it shipped.

Xela: Woh! Why so much? Like I said, I was thinking it was $25?

bcc: You're responsible for insurance. If you want to forgo insurance, I can ship the book cheaper, but you're on the hook if it gets lost.

Xela: thanks, but I'll respectfully pass.

 

Probation List worthy?

 

Not sure if responding to me. But I agree with what you have written above I think it is likely that no deal was reached. But that is a separate issue to where the agreement originated (a WTB vs a sales thread) and my disagreement with you was on the importance of origin.

 

Anyway, my point of contention isn't important if we both agree no deal was reached. I just like arguing, even if others do not.

[HarveySwick]

I included Number 6's post that I was responding to.

 

I just don't think the buyer really knew what he was actually paying and what he was getting as far as shipping costs and insurance.

 

Numerous people are stating that bcc initially "quoted" shipping costs, but by his own admission that is not accurate. He stated it COULD be and made no mention of Xela being responsible for paying for insurance.

 

I've said several times, I'd need to see the actual PMs exchanged before I can cast blame either way. To me it appears to be a misunderstanding of actual costs and what was included (I.e. insurance) and onky when it became definitive and clear costs did the buyer "back out".

 

If the buyer had said AFTER specific costs and insurance were disclosed, then there would b a case for the PL. But bcc never disclosed that Xela would have to cover the cost of insurance and Cela obviously was basing his costs on what he paid in the past.

 

There is nothing sinister or malicious going on here. Just a clear miscommunication based on unclear responses by both parties. Neither party was clear in this instance.

[EC ed]

There is nothing sinister or malicious going on here. Just a clear miscommunication based on unclear responses by both parties. Neither party was clear in this instance.

 

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation.

 

I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on...

[Number 6]

Look at the line 3 lines above what you have in red.

 

If the buyer is supremely confident that it's going to cost no more than $25, doesn't he have an obligation to clearly state that before he says he'll take it? Especially when the estimate is so much more and is clearly going to be a deal breaker for him?

 

 

Like I said - I'd have to see the initial PM exchange. Did bcc say he was or was not familiar with shipping packages to the UK?

 

 

bcc: Sure, $450 works, but I can't cover shipping costs. I haven't shipped a lot of things overseas, but I've heard it's expensive. I can cover $20 but I'm worried it could be much more: even $40 - $60.

Xela: No worries, I've bought from numerous people and it's always cost me around $25.

 

.........

 

Completed deal with clear and specific terms? Yes/no?

 

Communication was clearly lacking on both sides because when the terms did became clear:

 

bcc: I just got back from USPS (or looked online). I was told it's going to be $63 shipped. PayPal me and I'll have it shipped.

Xela: Woh! Why so much? Like I said, I was thinking it was $25?

bcc: You're responsible for insurance. If you want to forgo insurance, I can ship the book cheaper, but you're on the hook if it gets lost.

Xela: thanks, but I'll respectfully pass.

 

Probation List worthy?

 

I agree that the PMs haven't been shown so we can't know for sure. Our comments are based solely on bcc's overview of the exchange.

 

However, the part in bold is something that you're inserting in the time frame at a point where - according to bcc - that statement hadn't been made yet.

 

I agree that IF Xela made that statement at that point it would change things. But according to bcc, he didn't.

[Number 6]

There is nothing sinister or malicious going on here. Just a clear miscommunication based on unclear responses by both parties. Neither party was clear in this instance.

 

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation.

 

I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on...

 

Isn't the objective of the PL to work out problem transactions, including ones of miscommunication?

 

And again, where is the requirement that there be "sinister or malicious intent" in order for PL nomination to be valid?

[N/A]

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.

 

[N/A]

There is nothing sinister or malicious going on here. Just a clear miscommunication based on unclear responses by both parties. Neither party was clear in this instance.

 

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation.

 

I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on...

 

Isn't the objective of the PL to work out problem transactions, including ones of miscommunication?

 

And again, where is the requirement that there be "sinister or malicious intent" in order for PL nomination to be valid?

 

 

No.

[skypinkblu]

I just saw this...I recently sold Xela 2 books for less than $20 shipped First class, boxed and packed well, it was still under 2lbs I don't know if Boyd's books were slabs?.

 

The difference is probably that I have private insurance on my collection, so it was covered up to $250

 

Boyd's deal was for more than that, so he might have needed a signature IF he has private insurance. I had absolutely no problems with Sam (Xela) and I've dealt with BCC (Boyd) for years...so I'm pretty sure it was a misunderstanding.

 

I gave Xela a higher estimate originally as well, as I rarely ship to England, only occasionally, but I was able to get the package weight down.

 

I have to add, that although I've never had a problem with any non US boardie...and I like all of them...the shipping, unless you are used to it, can be very daunting..

[Number 6]

There is nothing sinister or malicious going on here. Just a clear miscommunication based on unclear responses by both parties. Neither party was clear in this instance.

 

This is the foundation of my earlier comments about pursuit of the PL being a "hard- line" to take in this situation.

 

I was never arguing that buyers should be held to lower standards, in general. I believe buyers should go above and beyond to honor their commitments, just as sellers should. I'm just in the camp that thinks there was some misunderstanding here, which I tend to give benefit of the doubt on...

 

Isn't the objective of the PL to work out problem transactions, including ones of miscommunication?

 

And again, where is the requirement that there be "sinister or malicious intent" in order for PL nomination to be valid?

 

 

No.

 

 

O.k., I'm out.

[HarveySwick]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

[comix4fun]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

I think the only thing you've left out of your analysis is when a buyer is informed of a potential final cost for shipping and, knowing that there's a potential range (low to high) and agrees to the deal with full knowledge that the shipping may be anywhere within that range.

 

Informed consent of where the entire cost of the deal (with the variance in shipping cost being less than material to the total deal) will end up and buyer's agreement to the deal despite there being a possible range of shipping costs still means there's a deal.

[N/A]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

You're getting there.....slowly.

[N/A]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

I think the only thing you've left out of your analysis is when a buyer is informed of a potential final cost for shipping and, knowing that there's a potential range (low to high) and agrees to the deal with full knowledge that the shipping may be anywhere within that range.

 

Informed consent of where the entire cost of the deal (with the variance in shipping cost being less than material to the total deal) will end up and buyer's agreement to the deal despite there being a possible range of shipping costs still means there's a deal.

 

Get'm!!!

[comix4fun]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

I think the only thing you've left out of your analysis is when a buyer is informed of a potential final cost for shipping and, knowing that there's a potential range (low to high) and agrees to the deal with full knowledge that the shipping may be anywhere within that range.

 

Informed consent of where the entire cost of the deal (with the variance in shipping cost being less than material to the total deal) will end up and buyer's agreement to the deal despite there being a possible range of shipping costs still means there's a deal.

 

Get'm!!!

 

 

Not too much time today, but I read the whole mess so far.

 

When someone quotes you a price for a book and a price range for shipping and you agree to the deal you agree to any shipping cost that falls in the range.

 

Trying to cancel the deal based on hearing information and options for shipping that were all within the range mentioned, when he accepted the deal in the first place, is less than stellar business dealing.

 

But I think this really boils down to how people should and should not talk to one another. A little courtesy, a little empathy, and a little respect from the buyer in telling the seller of his desire to not go through with the deal may have led the seller to simply move on, regardless of how correct he was that they had a deal.

[N/A]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

I think the only thing you've left out of your analysis is when a buyer is informed of a potential final cost for shipping and, knowing that there's a potential range (low to high) and agrees to the deal with full knowledge that the shipping may be anywhere within that range.

 

Informed consent of where the entire cost of the deal (with the variance in shipping cost being less than material to the total deal) will end up and buyer's agreement to the deal despite there being a possible range of shipping costs still means there's a deal.

 

Get'm!!!

 

 

Not too much time today, but I read the whole mess so far.

 

When someone quotes you a price for a book and a price range for shipping and you agree to the deal you agree to any shipping cost that falls in the range.

 

Trying to cancel the deal based on hearing information and options for shipping that were all within the range mentioned, when he accepted the deal in the first place, is less than stellar business dealing.

 

But I think this really boils down to how people should and should not talk to one another. A little courtesy, a little empathy, and a little respect from the buyer in telling the seller of his desire to not go through with the deal may have led the seller to simply move on, regardless of how correct he was that they had a deal.

 

You're coming along too!

 

A little slower than Swick.

[bcc]

Hi everyone,

 

Firstly I don't think I was obstructing a sales thread of bcc.

 

I said I'd pass on the books because I feel the shipping was extortionate. I've had multiple books (slabbed and raw) sent from the USA and it was only $20. So I don't feel giving him an extra $40 on shipping + giving him way over GPA on the slabbed book is fair..

 

I think bcc is trying to get me on the probation list for the sake of it.

 

Cheers

 

I never said you were obstructing anything, it was your WTB thread and you agreed to purchase the books.

 

So you are accusing me of extortion? Even after I told you what costs would probably be and you still said OK I'll take it. You were not GIVING me anything on shipping, I wasn't making a nickel on shipping. I gave you an estimated price that you agreed to, I then gave you package dimensions and weight to let you double check yourself. Then I gave you options. Your option was to back out of a deal in a rather rude manner.

 

"For the sake of it"? In all the years I've been on the boards I've never nominated anyone for the PL. I don't even know you, but I do now.

[bcc]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

Well, we are not getting anywhere here. You are welcome to your opinion. There was clearly a deal and there was NO misunderstanding of costs when he said he would take it. There was no misunderstanding of any kind. Xela changed his mind and handled it very poorly and his actions since have only solidified my opinion of him.

 

FYI; The insurance cost for the package was actually less than $3 of the cost, Priority Express International is automatically insured up to $200, the remainder of the insurance was less than $3 if I remember correctly, possibly $4, I'm not wasting anymore time on this to go back and check.

 

As for your speculations and recreations on what might have been said in the actual PMs, I've already laid it out pretty succinctly and clearly. If you just gotta have it word for word for your own edification I'll be glad to send you every PM if I can figure out how to do that but it is just as I first laid it out.

 

I appreciate everyone's time and opinions. At this point I guess everyone can make up their own mind

[comix4fun]

Isn't that the sort of intention behind the Probation List. As Sharon describes it - a place for naughty buyers/sellers who need a time out.

 

I think more and more it is being used as a tool to force a deal when there really wasn't one.

 

I don't think there were clearly defined terms laid out here. Communication was lacking on both the part of the seller and the buyer. Seller never mentioned insurance until later, and when it was first mentioned that the buyer would be responsible for the cost, he was clear in his response - "pass."

 

It's not like the seller clearly said shipping WILL be $40 - $60 and you are responsible for insurance.

 

I don't think the PL is a place for would-be transactions that failed based on a lack of clarity regarding terms of a would-be deal. I think the PL is for clearly defined terms that were acceptd and a party breaks those terms and cancels a deal without an explanation.

 

Additionally, not every nomination IS a valid nomination. That is why this thread is called the Probation Discussion thread. To give the accused a chance to present his side. Xela came forward and said he didn't understand the terms of the shipping and what he'd have to pay and hat was included. There clearly wasn't a deal.

 

Is he lying? Is there any indication that he KNEW what the actual shipping costs were and what was included? No. bcc has not provided any of that evidence (such as actual PMs or statements made) to support his nomination.

 

 

I think the only thing you've left out of your analysis is when a buyer is informed of a potential final cost for shipping and, knowing that there's a potential range (low to high) and agrees to the deal with full knowledge that the shipping may be anywhere within that range.

 

Informed consent of where the entire cost of the deal (with the variance in shipping cost being less than material to the total deal) will end up and buyer's agreement to the deal despite there being a possible range of shipping costs still means there's a deal.

 

Get'm!!!

 

 

Not too much time today, but I read the whole mess so far.

 

When someone quotes you a price for a book and a price range for shipping and you agree to the deal you agree to any shipping cost that falls in the range.

 

Trying to cancel the deal based on hearing information and options for shipping that were all within the range mentioned, when he accepted the deal in the first place, is less than stellar business dealing.

 

But I think this really boils down to how people should and should not talk to one another. A little courtesy, a little empathy, and a little respect from the buyer in telling the seller of his desire to not go through with the deal may have led the seller to simply move on, regardless of how correct he was that they had a deal.

 

You're coming along too!

 

A little slower than Swick.

 

 

I'm already where I want to be. Dragging people slowly to where they should probably already be.

 

This is just one of the cases where the seller's is technically right, and I always appreciate gaining knowledge of just how loosely some people take their business commitments on the boards, but he may or may not be gaining much satisfaction through the PL mechanism.