• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

PROBATION DISCUSSIONS
21 21

Started by alwaysbronze,

36,203 posts in this topic

Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted

It sounds like the offended party is going to drop the nomination so this may be beating a dead horse, but I think this needs to be clarified:

 

It's not like I threw up an :takeit: and didn't pay.

 

I decided to sell the book to someone else. Go buy it on eBay.

 

It's what if venom possessed deadpool. Not a rare book.

 

Committing to a purchase and then failing to pay, and committing to a sale and then unilaterally deciding to sell the book to someone else are essentially the same thing.

 

The dollar amount and/or the rarity of the item is immaterial.

 

The nominator had a legitimate case.

 

I understand that you didn't like the extended payment terms, and you believe that you were somehow coerced into accepting them. But the fact of the matter is you DID agree to them, thus making those terms part of your binding agreement.

 

You can't decide at a later date that the payment terms that you both agreed to no longer suit you and are a justification to break your agreement with buyer, just as a buyer can't later decide he doesn't like the price he committed to with his Take It and refuse to pay.

 

I point this out because I get the impression from your responses that you feel you've done nothing wrong. If that's the case you could find yourself in this position again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gem_Mint

Gem_Mint

Posted
Posted
It sounds like the offended party is going to drop the nomination so this may be beating a dead horse, but I think this needs to be clarified:

 

It's not like I threw up an :takeit: and didn't pay.

 

I decided to sell the book to someone else. Go buy it on eBay.

 

It's what if venom possessed deadpool. Not a rare book.

 

Committing to a purchase and then failing to pay, and committing to a sale and then unilaterally deciding to sell the book to someone else are essentially the same thing.

 

The dollar amount and/or the rarity of the item is immaterial.

 

The nominator had a legitimate case.

 

I understand that you didn't like the extended payment terms, and you believe that you were somehow coerced into accepting them. But the fact of the matter is you DID agree to them, thus making those terms part of your binding agreement.

 

You can't decide at a later date that the payment terms that you both agreed to no longer suit you and are a justification to break your agreement with buyer, just as a buyer can't later decide he doesn't like the price he committed to with his Take It and refuse to pay.

 

I point this out because I get the impression from your responses that you feel you've done nothing wrong. If that's the case you could find yourself in this position again.

 

No I can see how they are similar. At the time I didn't think the buyer would care. I thought he would have been more understanding.

 

I still do feel that being a non payer is worse though....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted
I meant why Number 6 was blaiming me like I'm the seller :shrug:

 

Where in my post did I assert that you were responsible for this transaction?

 

You asked the nominator what the offender could do to get off the list if in fact he were to make it on the Probation List. That question has been asked of nominators more than once.

 

I am unclear as to why it's the nominator's responsibility to figure that out for the offender.

 

Since you asked the question I replied to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jsilverjanet

jsilverjanet

Posted
Posted
It seemed like JJanet came to my defense and 6 can at him like a spider monkey...

 

But I guess I interpreted both wrong.

 

(tsk) I did not come to your defense

 

I was questioning why both of you were here and couldn't work this out.

 

It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

Furthermore many of these issues would be resolved if both parties tried to work things out privately, and if you did ignore his PMs then shame on you and you brought this upon yourself

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steveinthecity

steveinthecity

Posted
Posted
It seemed like JJanet came to my defense and 6 came at him like a spider monkey...

 

But I guess I interpreted both wrong.

I thought they each asked a reasonable question. I didn't get a sense of any sort of "defending" or "spider monkey-like" assailing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gem_Mint

Gem_Mint

Posted
Posted

Tbh, I wouldn't mind if the neg stayed.

 

When I claim a book, I'm ready to pay right then and there.

 

I guess I just expect the same when I'm selling.

 

If you want to buy a book from me. Claim, pay, and ship... 1, 2, 3.

 

I guess I can be a lil impatient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noodlez

Noodlez

Posted
Posted
He PMed me "wow"

 

Then he PMed me how he left me neg kudos.

 

So I ignored him.

 

 

I kept getting this from you

 

 

"Gem_Mint has removed themself from this topic"

 

So I had to start a new conversation over again and again...

 

Then I was blocked. Running, but not hiding.

 

 

So being the less experienced member I took it to kudos. Why? Not sure, but i deleted it. Never had an issue on here so never had to go through all this.

 

Since then you haven't pmed me once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Semicentennial

Semicentennial

Posted
Posted

I actually don't think your expectation is unreasonable, but you two had agreed to proceed with the sales on different terms than "claim, pay, and ship". I too would be impatient if I had a sale go for as long as you did, but if I had a buyer that was going to take a while to pay for a book, unless its a high dollar book, I'd probably decline the sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Number 6

Number 6

Posted
Posted
It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gem_Mint

Gem_Mint

Posted
Posted
It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jsilverjanet

jsilverjanet

Posted
Posted
It's great that the PL system is in place to handle these types of issues and maybe I'm wrong but if I am taking an action like submitting someone to the PL then I have an idea on how I would like to have the issue resolved. :shrug:

 

If I'm the offended one, why wouldnt I already have an idea on how I could be made whole?

 

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 agreed to sell the book to him then didn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
21 21
Go to topic listing