PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[N/A]

[Sqeggs]

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

 

The bottom line, I suppose, is are you pursuing a PL nomination or dropping it?

[Sqeggs]

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...

 

I thought your earlier point was, at least partly, that sellers ought to think through whether they really want to use the PL mechanism to force a sale on a recalitrant buyer.

 

I think the way the PL works, sellers should only pursue that course if they are certain they still want to sell the book to the buyer should the buyer change his mind and agree to complete the transaction.

[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...

 

I thought your earlier point was, at least partly, that sellers ought to think through whether they really want to use the PL mechanism to force a sale on a recalitrant buyer.

 

I think the way the PL works, sellers should only pursue that course if they are certain they still want to sell the book to the buyer should the buyer change his mind and agree to complete the transaction.

 

And the pitchfork party should take a break before offering their support.

[bcc]

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...

 

I thought your earlier point was, at least partly, that sellers ought to think through whether they really want to use the PL mechanism to force a sale on a recalitrant buyer.

 

I think the way the PL works, sellers should only pursue that course if they are certain they still want to sell the book to the buyer should the buyer change his mind and agree to complete the transaction.

 

Well, if that is the criteria then I guess this has been a waste of time. I'm pretty sure he won't be changing his mind and I certainly won't sell him anything at any price if he did. If nomination for the PL only exists to force transactions to be consummated then I misread its purpose. Sorry for wasting anyone's time.

[EC ed]

I thought your earlier point was, at least partly, that sellers ought to think through whether they really want to use the PL mechanism to force a sale on a recalitrant buyer.

 

Indeed, that was also one of the points I was making. I may have taken on too many points at one time

[InvstmntComcSuply]

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.

 

 

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 also don't see any benefit in speculating about what went on in a PM.

If neither side posts the PM exchange, but they don't deny the other's summary, then there was an agreement that was off by $3.

[InvstmntComcSuply]

If I give an estimate for international shipping that a buyer agrees to, and it ends up being accurate, is it really my fault if the buyer later states "but I get shipments from the US all the time for 1/2 of your estimate"?

 

 

[oakman29]

If I give an estimate for international shipping that a buyer agrees to, and it ends up being accurate, is it really my fault if the buyer later states "but I get shipments from the US all the time for 1/2 of your estimate"?

 

No!

 

 

I don't know why everyone is arguing whether he belongs on the PL or not,he certainly belongs there.

[comix4fun]

If I give an estimate for international shipping that a buyer agrees to, and it ends up being accurate, is it really my fault if the buyer later states "but I get shipments from the US all the time for 1/2 of your estimate"?

 

 

 

Not your fault, no.

 

In fact...the statement of "but I get shipments from the US all the time for 1/2 of your estimate" should be raised when still negotiating costs and before "It's a deal" otherwise the buyer's waived the right to raise it later.

 

You can't agree to a cost for shipping and then, when the estimate is accurate, complain that it's too high.

[HarveySwick]

Put him in the HOS!

 

[N/A]

Burn the witch!

[N/A]

If I give an estimate for international shipping that a buyer agrees to, and it ends up being accurate, is it really my fault if the buyer later states "but I get shipments from the US all the time for 1/2 of your estimate"?

 

No!

 

 

I don't know why everyone is arguing whether he belongs on the PL or not,he certainly belongs there.

 

Everyone does. It's where all the cool boardies hang out.

 

I wonder if we can make the list big enough that they have their own sales section?

[InvstmntComcSuply]

As an aside, buyers regularly have no idea how much it costs to ship things.

Often the shipping cost is built into the cost of the item "FREE shipping!!!!"

Often purchases over $250 are shipped without signature confirmation (extremely costly on international shipments)

Domestically many nonqualifying items are shipped by inexpensive media mail

Many non-professional sellers also have no idea how much shipping costs and unintentionally end up subsidizing shipping, further distorting buyers perceptions

[MediumLover]

If the buyer was a n00b...

[Sqeggs]

I thought your earlier point was, at least partly, that sellers ought to think through whether they really want to use the PL mechanism to force a sale on a recalitrant buyer.

 

Indeed, that was also one of the points I was making. I may have taken on too many points at one time

 

To receive full credit, all responses must be specific and provide examples.

[thirdgreenham]

I also wanted to mention - this was a response to a WTB thread. NOT an in a sales thread.

 

If it was a response to a sales thread, I'd be more inclined to say this could be a valid PL nomination. But it's a PM response to a WTB thread. The guy wasted your time and that sucks - but I don't see it as a completed deal and not PL worthy. Again, just my

 

The buyer was told $450 plus shipping. Shipping would be $50-60 and seller would pay $20 of that. Buyer said I'll take it.

 

You don't see that as a deal in place?

[thirdgreenham]

If the buyer was a n00b...

 

The buyer is a noob.

[N/A]

If the buyer was a n00b...

 

The buyer is a noob.

 

You're a noob.

[HarveySwick]

I've repeatedly said "I need to see the PMs and what was actually said."

 

It's bcc' nomination. He should be able to easily quote, copy and paste what he had written here without too much effort.

 

If the seller said shipping COULD be $40 - $60, that's different than shipping WILL be $40 - $60.

 

The buyer has already explained that with his previous dealings, shipping was around $25. Did the seller make it clear that the cost WILL be or that it COULD be. This is a difference to me in the intent of the parties.

 

Maybe the buyer just read it as it COULD be $40 - $60 (but really will be $25 and he believed the seller was just guessing the cost).

 

For everyone arguing that the buyer agreed to the "$40 - $60" shipping cost, why did he say "pass" when quoted with an exact number and why did he publicly post that he assumed it would really be $25 as is what he had spent in past dealings.

 

I need to see what was expressed to the buyer. Some people aren't rocket scientists. Maybe he mistakenly read the seller's estimate as just a guess and thought he knew what the real shipping cost is based on experience.

 

I think IF the seller said: "shipping WILL be between $40 - $60" and the buyer said "I agree with the cost of $40 - $60" then there might be an issue.

 

Go back and read bcc's nomination. He says specifically shipping COULD be. People are changing what was said.

 

Maybe I'm completely wrong and everyone will just at me. I'm fine with that. Throw Xela on the PL. Heck, through both of them in the HOS. I don't know either of them and don't have a horse in this race. I was just explaining that this is clearly a misunderstanding or a miscommunication and don't think it's a PL issue. Unless someone can prove that Xela KNEW that the cost would be "40 - $60" and agreed to that other than bcc saying here "could be $40 - $60."

 

All of this is just my