I'LL TAKE IT!!!

[Dick Pontoon]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

[mschmidt]

It's not

[comicdonna]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

Is this a trick question?

[Bomber-Bob]

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

 

No argument from me. I agree with you.

[joe_collector]

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

 

Because those are the rules a particular seller set in his sales thread.

 

If someone wants to pay full price they get first dibs, as I am sure people aren't PM'ing to offer *more* money and until a book is officially in the main thread, it should be expected to be available.

 

And if a seller wants to do the opposite and risk getting less and ticking off in-thread full-price buyers, then he or she can set the sales thread rules like that.

[Bosco685]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days.

 

Not that confusing if you follow the fun of the probation thread over the past year alone. Folks are having short-term memory loss if they committed to a sale or not.

 

That was why when we discussed it in the probation thread, this was brought up as one of the potential motivators (and agent of confusion for some sellers what approach to take).

[mysterio]

My take on the situation is that a clear, public in the thread takes precedence so every buyer knows who claimed a book. Recently I have seen a few threads (and there have been other threads discussing those threads) where there has been a dispute over who had the rights to buy a particular book. If is thrown down in the thread then everyone can see the evidence and it makes everything clear. This makes is easy on the seller, who avoids having to explain to at least one buyer why the book they claimed is actually not theirs.

[Dick Pontoon]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

Is this a trick question?

 

Nope. I'm asking a sincere question albeit probably naively.

[Subliminal]

Because it creates a level playing field between insider deals and everyday Joe's who just say they'll take it?

 

Everytime I see an I'll take it in the thread followed up with a "I'm sorry, but someone already bought it via PM" I wonder if they, indeed, made the deal before the one in the thread, in the absence of proof.

I'm talking about the ones where the seller gets back hours and hours later not the ones where sales are happening live.

[Dick Pontoon]

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

 

Because those are the rules a particular seller set in his sales thread.

 

If someone wants to pay full price they get first dibs, as I am sure people aren't PM'ing to offer *more* money and until a book is officially in the main thread, it should be expected to be available.

 

And if a seller wants to do the opposite and risk getting less and ticking off in-thread full-price buyers, then he or she can set the sales thread rules like that.

 

But I'm not talking about haggling, I'm talking about an unconditional (i.e. paying full price) "I'll take it" via PM not being considered as valid as one in the thread.

[thehumantorch]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

 

A seller may get a PM with but not have a chance to update their thread until after a is posted in the sales thread. This may lead to conflict.

 

Also, a buyer may post a in the sales thread for full price rather than trying to negotiate a better price via PM if seller states that in the thread rules.

[Bosco685]

There was a probation escalation a month or so ago where the seller felt there was a commitment from the buyer on an agreed-upon price. The buyer, though, felt they were just having a discussion, and never committed to the sale.

 

That is one example where by not having the buyer follow up with a , it left the entire situation being debated over shared PM's and if a real agreement occurred.

 

I'm sure situations like that leave some newer sellers wondering how often they will have to deal with this, even though that scenario is rare.

[joe_collector]

But I'm not talking about haggling, I'm talking about an unconditional (i.e. paying full price) "I'll take it" via PM not being considered as valid as one in the thread.

 

I used to do that, as I didn't want everyone knowing what I bought (I liked to keep the illusion that I don't own any comics alive) but I was also ready to accept that someone else posted a before the book was officially taken down/sold.

 

You really can't have it both ways.

[Bomber-Bob]

My take on the situation is that a clear, public in the thread takes precedence so every buyer knows who claimed a book. Recently I have seen a few threads (and there have been other threads discussing those threads) where there has been a dispute over who had the rights to buy a particular book. If is thrown down in the thread then everyone can see the evidence and it makes everything clear. This makes is easy on the seller, who avoids having to explain to at least one buyer why the book they claimed is actually not theirs.

 

I'd agree with you if there were not so many conditional variations of .

Does per PM take precedence over a ?

Does per BC scan take precedence over a ?

For such a simple concept it can get confusing.

[joe_collector]

Also, a buyer may post a in the sales thread for full price rather than trying to negotiate a better price via PM if seller states that in the thread rules.

 

Oh it's totally an impetus to buy and buy quick, and I can't believe a seller would accept a PM before an in-thread BIN and potentially tick off impulse buyers.

 

I actually saw that happen a few times and the sales thread quickly died out.

[Dick Pontoon]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days.

 

Not that confusing if you follow the fun of the probation thread over the past year alone. Folks are having short-term memory loss if they committed to a sale or not.

 

That was why when we discussed it in the probation thread, this was brought up as one of the potential motivators (and agent of confusion for some sellers what approach to take).

 

I read the Probation thread all the time.

 

I've bought books via PM. I've sold books via PM. I still don't understand why a public "I'll take it" is more of a commitment.

[comicdonna]

I'm confused by the myriad variations of "I'll take it!" stipulations in the Sales Forums these days. Some sellers feel that the first unconditional "I'll take it!" secures the item, while others require "I'll take it!" to be posted within the body of the sales thread in order for a sale to be valid, even if a buyer has already committed unconditionally to buy the item via PM. In such cases, an earlier timestamped "I'll take it!" via is superceded by a later timestamped "I'll take it!" in the body of the thread.

 

Every seller has the right to set their own rules, but I'm curious about the sellers who feel the sale must be public to be considered valid. Why is a later "I'll take it!" in a sales thread more valid than an earlier "I'll take it!" in a PM?

Is this a trick question?

 

Nope. I'm asking a sincere question albeit probably naively.

I bleieve a timestamp either in the thread or via PM should rule, and this should be stated up front by the seller. But, like you said, every seller has the right to state their own rules.

[Bosco685]

I still don't understand why a public "I'll take it" is more of a commitment.

 

Read my other post about the recent situation that occurred, and appears to be a slight trend.

 

I'll try and search for it later in the probation thread, as it was all about real commitment on a sale versus having a conversation about a book.

[joe_collector]

I'd agree with you if there were not so many conditional variations of .

Does per PM take precedence over a ?

Does per BC scan take precedence over a ?

For such a simple concept it can get confusing.

 

I just LOVE those ones, like:

 

pending scan, page quality, label number, cut, color, cover gloss, and the ability of my wallet to handle the $$$.

[mschmidt]

But I'm not talking about haggling, I'm talking about an unconditional (i.e. paying full price) "I'll take it" via PM not being considered as valid as one in the thread.

 

I used to do that, as I didn't want everyone knowing what I bought (I liked to keep the illusion that I don't own any comics alive) but I was also ready to accept that someone else posted a before the book was officially taken down/sold.

 

You really can't have it both ways.

 

It all depends on what the seller actually says in the thread, though. These are pretty common:

 

First wins

rules

 

In those cases, I would assume that the first "take it" that was posted (based on timestamp), regardless of whether it's in a PM or in the thread, would seal the deal.

 

EvilAsh, however, posted this in his sales thread:

 

The first in this thread wins

 

In that case it would obvious that you need to post the "takeit" in the thread to complete the transaction.