PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[comicwiz]

Wasn't there an offer to pay FMV if the person got it pressed/graded themselves? Why shouldn't their be an option to pay FMV on a 9.4 (12 month GPA or whatever the owner feels is the value)? I can only imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the boardie found the book in a 9.4 holder, especially when during the good faith PM negotiations with the buyer, they were told it would only grade a 9.0.

 

I think in the end, we need to weigh out all the aspects of what took place, the experience level of the people involved, and what was actually discussed. To me, the optics of this situation appears to reveal the buyer steering the value with absolutes, and in a manner where they stood to benefit greatly from the deal, especially when assessing the actual outcome of the 9.4 grade it received. I think a remediation or settlement on the matter requires more elaboration and discussion on what actually took place.

I don't think the pre-sale offer to pay GPA is relevant since a price was offered & accepted - this isn't about going back to the pre-nomination discussions this is about a guy coming off the list.

 

I do agree that the nominee was a n00b at the time and may have been inexperienced with regard to offer/acceptance being enough to be considered a deal. I don't feel as a community we have a role judging negotiation skills or tactics, I prefer that the nominator be given opinions to make his choice.

 

I do agree with a less punitive Option 2 and shared that opinion with the nominator.

.

 

I think the talking points you raise are valid. I think however that the part about demanding restitution is where things fall apart for me when it comes to arriving at an amicable resolution. I also see how this all has implications on HOS status.

 

I'm also framing this event with a few other situations I've observed, including one I had recently myself. A person had an item on another forum marketplace. I couldn't see the item achieving a grade higher than an 85. In the end, the item came back a 90, and effectively was valued at nearly $800 more than I would have been paying.

 

I didn't expect the person to even communicate with me after effectivly under grading the item in that manner, but he was actually thankful I brought-up the suggestion in our discussions about getting it graded.

 

On that same forum where the above took place, a few other situations have occurred in the past year where boardies jump in on a PGM-type thread situation and offer less than what the item is worth via PM, and when the situations reach the level of public complaints with regard to sellers reneging on a deal (usually because another boardie offered them more after agreeing to do a deal), in practically every instance, the perception of the situations have an underhanded feel to them, especially when the incidents involved veterans doing this to newb's.

 

I'm not saying that's what took place here, but based on what I've read, I think if the buyer was that interested in the book, they should consider paying the 9.4 value, or buy a 9.0, and not expect someone to break even, or worse take a loss on a book because of their inexperience.

[comix4fun]

Wasn't there an offer to pay FMV if the person got it pressed/graded themselves? Why shouldn't their be an option to pay FMV on a 9.4 (12 month GPA or whatever the owner feels is the value)? I can only imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the boardie found the book in a 9.4 holder, especially when during the good faith PM negotiations with the buyer, they were told it would only grade a 9.0.

 

I think in the end, we need to weigh out all the aspects of what took place, the experience level of the people involved, and what was actually discussed. To me, the optics of this situation appears to reveal the buyer steering the value with absolutes, and in a manner where they stood to benefit greatly from the deal, especially when assessing the actual outcome of the 9.4 grade it received. I think a remediation or settlement on the matter requires more elaboration and discussion on what actually took place.

I don't think the pre-sale offer to pay GPA is relevant since a price was offered & accepted - this isn't about going back to the pre-nomination discussions this is about a guy coming off the list.

 

I do agree that the nominee was a n00b at the time and may have been inexperienced with regard to offer/acceptance being enough to be considered a deal. I don't feel as a community we have a role judging negotiation skills or tactics, I prefer that the nominator be given opinions to make his choice.

 

I do agree with a less punitive Option 2 and shared that opinion with the nominator.

.

 

 

Here's the thing. Much as in the outside world we don't have an "eggshell skull" standard of conduct we have a reasonable standard that everyone is expected to abide by, meaning we don't tailor our expectations of how people are supposed to deal with one another based on ignorance. People cannot dummy up and relieve themselves of all responsibility. That is especially true in cases where here may be dishonesty involved.

 

While I agree that option 2 might sound extreme you should see the damages people are allowed when fraud is established, they make option 2 look like a fanny rub and a Popsicle. To understand option 2 look at it as if soup had sold to book as a 9.4 to someone else after October and after reneging on his deal with Matt. The average sales were over 1300. He would have generated a windfall through fraud and breach. Matt would be entitled to every last dollar of profit made by the seller that was gained through that breach. Option 2 gives the seller the option to abide by the terms of the agreement and put the purchaser in the same place he would have been had he honored the deal in place. Option 1 is cleaner and easier for some to understand but they both correct the aberrant behavior, prevent the blameless from being wronged and prevent the breaching party from profiting improperly.

 

The last thing we need here are thousands of individual standards of conduct, one for each member, so they can then dummy up when they don't like the terms a s weasel out of punishment for transgressions.

 

If he's got the book he needs to turn over the book for the original agreed upon price plus press and grading fees. Anything less is rewarding behavior that is not welcome on this forum.

[The-Collector]

Wasn't there an offer to pay FMV if the person got it pressed/graded themselves? Why shouldn't their be an option to pay FMV on a 9.4 (12 month GPA or whatever the owner feels is the value)? I can only imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the boardie found the book in a 9.4 holder, especially when during the good faith PM negotiations with the buyer, they were told it would only grade a 9.0.

 

I think in the end, we need to weigh out all the aspects of what took place, the experience level of the people involved, and what was actually discussed. To me, the optics of this situation appears to reveal the buyer steering the value with absolutes, and in a manner where they stood to benefit greatly from the deal, especially when assessing the actual outcome of the 9.4 grade it received. I think a remediation or settlement on the matter requires more elaboration and discussion on what actually took place.

I don't think the pre-sale offer to pay GPA is relevant since a price was offered & accepted - this isn't about going back to the pre-nomination discussions this is about a guy coming off the list.

 

I do agree that the nominee was a n00b at the time and may have been inexperienced with regard to offer/acceptance being enough to be considered a deal. I don't feel as a community we have a role judging negotiation skills or tactics, I prefer that the nominator be given opinions to make his choice.

 

I do agree with a less punitive Option 2 and shared that opinion with the nominator.

.

 

 

Here's the thing. Much as in the outside world we don't have an "eggshell skull" standard of conduct we have a reasonable standard that everyone is expected to abide by, meaning we don't tailor our expectations of how people are supposed to deal with one another based on ignorance. People cannot dummy up and relieve themselves of all responsibility. That is especially true in cases where here may be dishonesty involved.

 

While I agree that option 2 might sound extreme you should see the damages people are allowed when fraud is established, they make option 2 look like a fanny rub and a Popsicle. To understand option 2 look at it as if soup had sold to book as a 9.4 to someone else after October and after reneging on his deal with Matt. The average sales were over 1300. He would have generated a windfall through fraud and breach. Matt would be entitled to every last dollar of profit made by the seller that was gained through that breach. Option 2 gives the seller the option to abide by the terms of the agreement and put the purchaser in the same place he would have been had he honored the deal in place. Option 1 is cleaner and easier for some to understand but they both correct the aberrant behavior, prevent the blameless from being wronged and prevent the breaching party from profiting improperly.

 

The last thing we need here are thousands of individual standards of conduct, one for each member, so they can then dummy up when they don't like the terms a s weasel out of punishment for transgressions.

 

If he's got the book he needs to turn over the book for the original agreed upon price plus press and grading fees. Anything less is rewarding behavior that is not welcome on this forum.

 

This is a great analysis.

 

In Australia option two would probably be preferred by the courts as it only requires the payment of damages while option one requires specific performance.

 

Especially as it is difficult to see how the original bargain could be completed as the asset bargained for has now been fundamentally changed also replacement might not work as it is questionable wether the book is a fungible.

 

[comix4fun]

I think if the buyer was that interested in the book, they should consider paying the 9.4 value, or buy a 9.0, and not expect someone to break even, or worse take a loss on a book because of their inexperience.

 

 

 

If it turns out Soup was lying about all the things he seems to have been lying about, in addition to his original breach of the agreed upon deal, then this is rewarding unethical behavior.

 

The book was never a "9.0" it was anywhere between 9.0 and 9.4, the seller believed (if you read the PGM thread) that it could be a 9.4. The Seller went into the knowing full well the possible spread of grades. The deal was for this, exact, raw book with the seller knowing the grades could be a range.

 

The buyer contracted to buy this specific book with both parties knowing that there was risk on both parts as to what it would grade out as. $675 was ABOVE GPA for a slabbed 9.0 at the time of the deal. The buyer was willing to risk of possibly paying above slabbed market for raw book.

 

The seller had clear opinions and had clear knowledge of what he thought the grade was in that PGM book thread. He proffered the price to which the buyer agreed. They both were willing to take a risk as to what the book would grade out at.

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

[Bosco685]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

[ItsJustRyan]

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

+1

[comicwiz]

I think if the buyer was that interested in the book, they should consider paying the 9.4 value, or buy a 9.0, and not expect someone to break even, or worse take a loss on a book because of their inexperience.

 

 

 

If it turns out Soup was lying about all the things he seems to have been lying about, in addition to his original breach of the agreed upon deal, then this is rewarding unethical behavior.

 

The book was never a "9.0" it was anywhere between 9.0 and 9.4, the seller believed (if you read the PGM thread) that it could be a 9.4. The Seller went into the knowing full well the possible spread of grades. The deal was for this, exact, raw book with the seller knowing the grades could be a range.

 

The buyer contracted to buy this specific book with both parties knowing that there was risk on both parts as to what it would grade out as. $675 was ABOVE GPA for a slabbed 9.0 at the time of the deal. The buyer was willing to risk of possibly paying above slabbed market for raw book.

 

The seller had clear opinions and had clear knowledge of what he thought the grade was in that PGM book thread. He proffered the price to which the buyer agreed. They both were willing to take a risk as to what the book would grade out at.

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

Sorry, I don't see it that way. He's entitled to an ungraded 9.0. In his communication, he offered to pay FMV if the owner decided to send it in themselves, but I don't see that being offered as an option.

 

Either way, that's not going to happen now that the owner looked past his attempt to steer the deal. Perhaps that's why he stopped responding - who knows. It sounds like HOS for a defined term period is one way to resolve this as I don't see any of the other options playing out, and I think permanent HOS is too harsh.

 

As for your points about rewarding unethical behavour, I do think there is merit in talking about this in the open beyond this incident as I don't particularly feel the buyer should be rewarded for under-grading and under-valuing an item with a newb either.

[comicwiz]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in relevant to the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

[Bosco685]

Re Option 2. I'm a little fuzzy on being paid for a 9.4, because of the talk about the corner crease and it being a 9.0 originally.

 

I agree that you should have a raw 9.0, unless you knew it would be a 9.4 if pressed and that's what you intended to buy?

 

Otherwise, I'm not sure about the big difference in price.

 

Also not sure that this qualifies for the Hall of Shame at this time, although that is certainly where this guy seems to be headed with his attitude.

 

 

I was thinking about a solution for transactions with no real solution...have we ever put someone on the list for a year? Perhaps that's an option to consider?

That's why I was asking about the HOS requirements. It seems that the poor attitude of the seller and lack of communication/engagement makes folks just assume HOS. But is that the right thing in this case?

 

 

The 9.0-9.4 thing is throwing me as well. As if the assumption was this was going to be a 9.0 candidate anyway, just because it graded higher seems to cause confusion more than fair resolution.

[Bosco685]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in the confines of the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

 

Please explain the " 'it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario. Is it a situation where the seller told him it graded 9.0, and just refunded the payment made previously?

[bababooey]

Wasn't there an offer to pay FMV if the person got it pressed/graded themselves? Why shouldn't their be an option to pay FMV on a 9.4 (12 month GPA or whatever the owner feels is the value)? I can only imagine the bloodbath that would have ensued if the boardie found the book in a 9.4 holder, especially when during the good faith PM negotiations with the buyer, they were told it would only grade a 9.0.

 

I think in the end, we need to weigh out all the aspects of what took place, the experience level of the people involved, and what was actually discussed. To me, the optics of this situation appears to reveal the buyer steering the value with absolutes, and in a manner where they stood to benefit greatly from the deal, especially when assessing the actual outcome of the 9.4 grade it received. I think a remediation or settlement on the matter requires more elaboration and discussion on what actually took place.

I don't think the pre-sale offer to pay GPA is relevant since a price was offered & accepted - this isn't about going back to the pre-nomination discussions this is about a guy coming off the list.

 

I do agree that the nominee was a n00b at the time and may have been inexperienced with regard to offer/acceptance being enough to be considered a deal. I don't feel as a community we have a role judging negotiation skills or tactics, I prefer that the nominator be given opinions to make his choice.

 

I do agree with a less punitive Option 2 and shared that opinion with the nominator.

.

 

 

Here's the thing. Much as in the outside world we don't have an "eggshell skull" standard of conduct we have a reasonable standard that everyone is expected to abide by, meaning we don't tailor our expectations of how people are supposed to deal with one another based on ignorance. People cannot dummy up and relieve themselves of all responsibility. That is especially true in cases where here may be dishonesty involved.

 

While I agree that option 2 might sound extreme you should see the damages people are allowed when fraud is established, they make option 2 look like a fanny rub and a Popsicle. To understand option 2 look at it as if soup had sold to book as a 9.4 to someone else after October and after reneging on his deal with Matt. The average sales were over 1300. He would have generated a windfall through fraud and breach. Matt would be entitled to every last dollar of profit made by the seller that was gained through that breach. Option 2 gives the seller the option to abide by the terms of the agreement and put the purchaser in the same place he would have been had he honored the deal in place. Option 1 is cleaner and easier for some to understand but they both correct the aberrant behavior, prevent the blameless from being wronged and prevent the breaching party from profiting improperly.

 

The last thing we need here are thousands of individual standards of conduct, one for each member, so they can then dummy up when they don't like the terms a s weasel out of punishment for transgressions.

 

If he's got the book he needs to turn over the book for the original agreed upon price plus press and grading fees. Anything less is rewarding behavior that is not welcome on this forum.

I focused on Option 2 because Anfield Fox already stated that he'd let it go if the guy planned to keep it (Option A) during the PL nomination process on 8/23/12. - at the time of nomination I believe subsequent discussions & misunderstandings took place that may have led to a change of heart, but it doesn't negate the fact that an offer was made & publicly disclosed to drop the nomination and rescind the deal if the guy wanted to keep the book. Option A

 

If it truely was remorse i did tell him we could cancel it but he read it and ignored it and that lead me to missing out on the other copy. I certainly wouldn't want to force someone if they didn't really want to sell it. For what it's worth, the price given was for a raw book at a higher price than a CGC copy of the same book would sell for, so i'm not sure why he would be remorseful.

 

Yes, Soup-guy has stumbled and bumbled his way through this and has yet to be displaying anything resembling good character but in no way am I changing standards based on participants - the only one who needs satisfaction from this is Anfield Fox.

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

The settlement for removal from PL is at the discretion of the nominator as per 4 (b) of the rules - not the community - you've opined that things made public are "our" business after you requested details from the nominee & it became a more public debate. I still say the final decision is AnfieldFox's & the opinions shared here are for him to consider.

 

I'm not responding to the "bigger world" comparisons you are trying to drag into the discussion, we should focus on what happened here & the rules that apply here. Also because I know you'll just lay a beating on me if I go there.

[comicwiz]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in the confines of the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

 

Please explain the " 'it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario. Is it a situation where the seller told him it graded 9.0, and just refunded the payment made previously?

 

The owner told him $675 is what he had in the book, and the 9.0 suggestion was already a stretch (quoting GPA) to pay what he had in the book. So he expected to take the book at what the buyer payed and capped the book at a 9.0, but was trying to squeeze out a 9.4? With the help of a second opinion, the buyer wised-up, didn't respond and no payment was sent/received. I get how that's shifty behaviour, but he was a newb and that's how he decided to deal with the situation.

 

I just don't get how this went from a deal going bad on an "absolute" 9.0, to the entitlement of getting a 9.4 as restitution? Are we penalizing people here now because they're wising-up too quickly to give veterans a shot at profiting at their expense?

[Bosco685]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in the confines of the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

 

Please explain the " 'it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario. Is it a situation where the seller told him it graded 9.0, and just refunded the payment made previously?

 

The owner told him $675 is what he had in the book, and the 9.0 suggestion was already a stretch (quoting GPA) to pay what he had in the book. So he expected to take the book at what the buyer payed and capped the book at a 9.0, but was trying to squeeze out a 9.4? I just don't get how this went from a deal going bad on an absolute 9.0, to the entitlement of getting a 9.4 as restitution?

 

Okay, so it is not just me getting a little confused with the details. Thank you!

[seanfingh]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in the confines of the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

 

Please explain the " 'it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario. Is it a situation where the seller told him it graded 9.0, and just refunded the payment made previously?

 

The owner told him $675 is what he had in the book, and the 9.0 suggestion was already a stretch (quoting GPA) to pay what he had in the book. So he expected to take the book at what the buyer payed and capped the book at a 9.0, but was trying to squeeze out a 9.4? With the help of a second opinion, the buyer wised-up, didn't respond and no payment was sent/received. I get how that's shifty behaviour, but he was a newb and that's how they decided to deal with the situation.

 

I just don't get how this went from a deal going bad on an "absolute" 9.0, to the entitlement of getting a 9.4 as restitution? Are we penalizing people here now because they're wising-up to quickly to give veterans a shot at profiting at their expense?

 

No, there has been an application of the principles of breach of contract, and other logical analyses, as opposed to inventing a n00b vs. vet scenario that exists nowhere other than in your mind.

 

Again, as there is no perfect solution to this situation (predicated upon the raw comic now being a CGC graded 9.4 comic) I would rather have the deleterious effects that relate to that change in circumstance fall upon the party that, as it appears right now, not only reneges on deals, but lies and fabricates fake sales.

 

 

[comix4fun]

I think if the buyer was that interested in the book, they should consider paying the 9.4 value, or buy a 9.0, and not expect someone to break even, or worse take a loss on a book because of their inexperience.

 

 

 

If it turns out Soup was lying about all the things he seems to have been lying about, in addition to his original breach of the agreed upon deal, then this is rewarding unethical behavior.

 

The book was never a "9.0" it was anywhere between 9.0 and 9.4, the seller believed (if you read the PGM thread) that it could be a 9.4. The Seller went into the knowing full well the possible spread of grades. The deal was for this, exact, raw book with the seller knowing the grades could be a range.

 

The buyer contracted to buy this specific book with both parties knowing that there was risk on both parts as to what it would grade out as. $675 was ABOVE GPA for a slabbed 9.0 at the time of the deal. The buyer was willing to risk of possibly paying above slabbed market for raw book.

 

The seller had clear opinions and had clear knowledge of what he thought the grade was in that PGM book thread. He proffered the price to which the buyer agreed. They both were willing to take a risk as to what the book would grade out at.

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

 

Sorry, I don't see it that way. He's entitled to an ungraded 9.0. In his communication, he offered to pay FMV if the owner decided to send it in themselves, but I don't see that being offered as an option.

 

 

That's not really how a contract works. They made a deal for this specific book. They both were taking risks.

 

He was paying OVER GPA for a slabbed 9.0 with the $675 price tag. Over slabbed money for a raw.

 

The Seller after all discussions offered the price of $675, the buyer accepted. It wasn't "I will get you a random 9.0" it was to sell this specific book with the possibility of the buyer overpaying or the seller underselling.

 

 

Either way, that's not going to happen now that the owner looked past his attempt to steer the deal. Perhaps that's why he stopped responding - who knows. It sounds like HOS for a defined term period is one way to resolve this as I don't see any of the other options playing out, and I think permanent HOS is too harsh.

 

 

PL is for individual transactions where someone doesn't pay or perform and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with dishonesty, fraud or deception.

 

If it turns out that Soup lied to him and us all these different times. Book was sold back in September, Book was pressed graded and sold for $730. Book was sold at all. If it turns out he was lying exactly how many lies does someone have to tell before they are worthy of being deemed a liar and branded as such regardless of the number of transactions?

 

 

 

As for your points about rewarding unethical behavour, I do think there is merit in talking about this in the open beyond this incident as I don't particularly feel the buyer should be rewarded for under-grading and under-valuing an item with a newb either.

 

You're kidding, come on.

 

An adult comes on this forum, has an opinion of his book between a 9.2 and 9.4, decides to come up with his own price and sell his own book for his own price that he himself sets the terms of and you think it's on the buyer for "under grading" and "undervaluing"? Really?

 

personally thought I would get a 9.4 in comparing it to other books.

 

 

Do people bear no responsibility for their behavior?

 

Adults come to this forum, have their own opinions, set their own grades, make up their own prices and then have no responsibility to honor their word? It's the buyer who is unethical for accepting the seller's offer?

 

 

[comix4fun]

 

I just don't get how this went from a deal going bad on an "absolute" 9.0, to the entitlement of getting a 9.4 as restitution? Are we penalizing people here now because they're wising-up too quickly to give veterans a shot at profiting at their expense?

 

 

It was never an absolute anything. The seller thought it was a 9.4.

 

And we went to giving the buyer what he agreed to buy for the price he agreed to pay as soon as the seller offered the book at the price with full knowledge and forethought.

 

And we aren't penalizing anyone. We are requesting that a seller, an adult, honor their word and complete their deal.

 

Making this about veterans and noobs is a red herring. These are two adults with all their faculties making a voluntary agreement to a deal and one of them potentially lying and cheating his way out of it and people saying to give him a pass because he's "new."

[comicwiz]

The fact that it actually came back as a 9.4 has ZERO bearing on the fact that there was a valid deal, in place, between these two people for this specific book at a specific price.

The seller is not a child of someone with mental deficiency. He's an adult, who voluntarily joined a message board, voluntarily posted that book, voluntarily offered his opinion to grade noting that he thought it could be 9.4, voluntarily made an offer to the buyer that was accepted. He made a deal, he needs to stick to the deal or suffer the consequences of what happens when adults enter into an agreement and then willingly, intentionally, and deliberately break that deal.

 

That's where I think we get off track is when there is a focus on the grade versus the situation that this was a deal gone bad. When we start focusing so much on the grade or potential grade that was assumed by both parties, it seems to confuse the situaton.

 

The buyer is owed the book for sure. The seller having regrets that the book graded higher is the motivation he had for giving up his reputation for money. What's in-between keeps going in and out due to all the details or opinions being tossed out.

 

Not quite, because the charge against the owner is that he's acted unethically. Sorry, but the whole "it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario doesn't sit well within the confines of ethical behaviour. We don't know if the owner mummed-up because he got an opinion from someone else that it would grade higher, and later found the tactic to be off-putting. This is all in the confines of the same discussion because HOS is about keeping unethical behaviour in check.

 

Please explain the " 'it's a 9.0, take my money and like it" scenario. Is it a situation where the seller told him it graded 9.0, and just refunded the payment made previously?

 

The owner told him $675 is what he had in the book, and the 9.0 suggestion was already a stretch (quoting GPA) to pay what he had in the book. So he expected to take the book at what the buyer payed and capped the book at a 9.0, but was trying to squeeze out a 9.4? With the help of a second opinion, the buyer wised-up, didn't respond and no payment was sent/received. I get how that's shifty behaviour, but he was a newb and that's how they decided to deal with the situation.

 

I just don't get how this went from a deal going bad on an "absolute" 9.0, to the entitlement of getting a 9.4 as restitution? Are we penalizing people here now because they're wising-up to quickly to give veterans a shot at profiting at their expense?

 

No, there has been an application of the principles of breach of contract, and other logical analyses, as opposed to inventing a n00b vs. vet scenario that exists nowhere other than in your mind.

 

Again, as there is no perfect solution to this situation (predicated upon the raw comic now being a CGC graded 9.4 comic) I would rather have the deleterious effects that relate to that change in circumstance fall upon the party that, as it appears right now, not only reneges on deals, but lies and fabricates fake sales.

 

 

Maybe as Sharon suggested, a time period of a year would be more appropriate, especially since this is new information that has forced the buyer to renominate. I don't like his conduct any better than you do, and I'm not suggesting the newb aspect is the be all end all to decide the situation, but it did happen at an early stage in his membership, he needs to demonstrate better behaviour and communication, and perhaps a term HOS nomination might be more appropriate.

[HugeRosen]

Where is Soup?

[comix4fun]

The settlement for removal from PL is at the discretion of the nominator as per 4 (b) of the rules - not the community - you've opined that things made public are "our" business after you requested details from the nominee & it became a more public debate. I still say the final decision is AnfieldFox's & the opinions shared here are for him to consider.

 

I'm not responding to the "bigger world" comparisons you are trying to drag into the discussion, we should focus on what happened here & the rules that apply here. Also because I know you'll just lay a beating on me if I go there.

 

 

Actually, Soup made this discussion "our" discussion when he came onto this forum looking for a way out so he could sell here again. He proffered the circumstances of his deal before I asked for details. He started the discussion here, he gave an explanation of his actions that was missing facts.

 

He opened the door. He cannot be mad that we walked through it. He made it part of the discussion here, he cannot cut it off because the heat's too hot.

 

The final decision is Matt's to be sure, but he would not be getting an real straight answer without the help and pressure from everyone else.

 

This world is part of the bigger world. We aren't inside some force field where the laws of equity, contract and fraud do not apply.

 

Hold people to their word. Demand they conform to a standard of ethical dealing, and don't EVER let someone wildly_fanciful_statement this group and get away with it.

[ItsJustRyan]

 

Taking the "comic" variable out and substituting for something else simpler.

 

I buy a pen for a dollar.

The seller decides it's worth more than a dollar after the fact.

The seller backs out (through various forms of avoidance and alleged lying).

I nominate for PL for this activity.

 

Is it this simple or am I missing something?

Why hasn't the seller chimmed in on this board?