APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[Jaydogrules]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

He negotiated and reached an agreement. Gambling ended when that agreement came.

 

"I'll take trumps PMs" is not the same as "I'll take it trumps PMs and agreements made in those PMs"

 

Actually it does mean just that. Again the whole point of saying first I'll take it in thread wins is to dissuade time consuming nickel and diming. Even if an agreement was reached in principal the first buyer still had to consummate it in the thread with an I'll take it. Why didn't he just do that ? Why is no one asking that and trying to make it seem like dan dealt in bad faith somehow? His listing rules could not have been more clear. "First I'll take it in thread trumps "ALL PM's".

 

Some may not like that he wrote that but it was his listing he can set his rules and I've seen that stipulation plenty of times. Roulette followed the rules, so he should somehow NOT get the book because another buyer wanted to haggle with the seller on his "firm" price? Let's look at both sides here. Dan made the right call. He followed his own listing rules. Roulette gets the book.

 

-J.

[kav]

People talking about the original topic are so 2 hours ago

[RockMyAmadeus]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

 

Damn straight!

 

Who do these people think they are, talking about honor and ethics, and that how we handle the little things determines how we handle the big things??

 

Waste of time!

 

 

Are you being serious? Honor and ethics, this is such a petty issue that I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You're being way too dramatic on an internet "COMIC" site to make me even blink and reread your comment.

Book is sold, move along. First world problems are for people without money.

 

Yes, I'm being quite serious.

 

How you behave in the little things determines how you behave in the big things.

 

That is an absolute truth, whether people believe it or not. It always has been, and always will be.

 

In the end, there are no "little things."

 

That's not to say that I don't understand and appreciate your point...but there are larger principles at play, here.

[Red_Hood]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

 

Here we go again. Just when I think I'm out....

 

Dan clearly stated an in the thread trumped everything else.

 

Mike / Transplant stated in the other thread that he was boarding a plane. Dan wasn't around either. So neither marked the book sold, which was a requirement of the thread and in the meantime, the book sold.

 

If Dan wrote down in his rules "Nobody gets the book unless they post 'Beetlejuice' in the thread" then that would have trumped an

 

It's a silly rule, Beetlejuice or but it was a rule.

 

What people are arguing is emotion, spirit of the rules, who wants the book more, etc.

 

The rules don't take that into account. Only what actually happened.

 

I can't believe I just posted all that.

 

Now can't we all just agree to disagree and draft a clean set of rules explaining how the timestamp works and move on?

 

Well stated. (thumbs u

 

Why is common sense such rarified air on a hobby forum?

[VintageComics]

There is a reason why there are judges and not only lawyers. And then judges over those judges. Oy vey!

 

[kav]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

I went outside, found a real life person and started telling them about the sales thread issue. It did not go well.

[Broke as a Joke]

Some people are acting like they immediately put a book on hold or pending as soon as somebody PM's them about it. I doubt that is how most operate...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

He negotiated and reached an agreement. Gambling ended when that agreement came.

 

"I'll take trumps PMs" is not the same as "I'll take it trumps PMs and agreements made in those PMs"

 

Actually it does mean just that. Again the whole point of saying first I'll take it in thread wins is to dissuade time consuming nickel and diming. Even if an agreement was reached in principal the first buyer still had to consummate it in the thread with an I'll take it. Why didn't he just do that ? Why is no one asking that and trying to make it seem like dan dealt in bad faith somehow? His listing rules could not have been more clear. "First I'll take it in thread trumps "ALL PM's".

 

You're distorting the arguments. No one said anything about Dan dealing in bad faith. In fact, many people have said that Dan did nothing out of bad faith...he simply made an error in judgment.

 

If the deal absolutely hinged on who posted in the thread first, then it was clearly the paramount consideration, and no deal should have been made with Tranny without it.

 

Some may not like that he wrote that but it was his listing he can set his rules and I've seen that stipulation plenty of times. Roulette followed the rules, so he should somehow NOT get the book because another buyer wanted to haggle with the seller on his "firm" price? Let's look at both sides here. Fan made the right call. He followed his own listing rules. Roulette gets the book.

 

-J.

 

You are misrepresenting the situation. There was no continued "haggling" going on. The deal was already made before roulette posted.

[ChicksCosmiComics]

I got an idea instead of 27 pages of he said she said, why don't you all go buy something from one of my threads just an idea. Carry on if you must

[HarveySwick]

This goes to anyone that states "Dan had rules and stuck with them. End of discussion. "...

 

1) Did he or did he not have a deal struck with Transplant including an offer and acceptance of that offer?

2) Why didn't he clearly state in his reply to Transplant - if you agree with those terms, please post in the thread per HIS rules?

 

[kav]

I got an idea instead of 27 pages of he said she said, why don't you all go buy something from one of my threads just an idea. Carry on if you must

[RockMyAmadeus]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

 

Here we go again. Just when I think I'm out....

 

Dan clearly stated an in the thread trumped everything else.

 

Then he should have followed his own rules and not negotiated a deal outside of that term.

[kav]

I think he should have cut the cat in half

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Just out of curiosity, have we seen the PMs to know what was really said? I haven't seen them…

[Red_Hood]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

 

Damn straight!

 

Who do these people think they are, talking about honor and ethics, and that how we handle the little things determines how we handle the big things??

 

Waste of time!

 

 

Are you being serious? Honor and ethics, this is such a petty issue that I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You're being way too dramatic on an internet "COMIC" site to make me even blink and reread your comment.

Book is sold, move along. First world problems are for people without money.

 

Yes, I'm being quite serious.

 

How you behave in the little things determines how you behave in the big things.

 

That is an absolute truth, whether people believe it or not. It always has been, and always will be.

 

In the end, there are no "little things."

 

That's not to say that I don't understand and appreciate your point...but there are larger principles at play, here.

 

Thanks and I appreciate your response.

I believe people need to really pick and choose their battles more appropriately to be seen in a certain light with others.

Do people want to be right or do they want to be happy?

I guess if they want to be right they keep chirping.

I don't care either way. I'm not trying to impress anyone.

[Prince Namor]

This whole thing is BS. I pray that the next time one of you fools are running a sales thread someone REALLY wants to buy a book, but has terms they have to work with. Then before they negotiate realize it could just be a huge waste of time, because even though they can have a negotiated deal, the seller can back out due to stipulation. I will say this again. They had a deal that was mutually agreed upon, sales thread rules be damned. Dan backed put of the deal, end of story. And last I checked he has to follow through with the deal, or he can go on the probation list. If he was going to pull this, he needs to state that he is unwilling to negotiate, being as even though he created terms and they were accepted, he did not honor his deal, even though the terms were agreed upon BEFORE anyone posted the takeit in the thread. Saying he didn't read it first is BS. You are selling a 3k book, which you sent over terms for and didn't read the pm? Right.

 

This.

 

 

Here we go again. Just when I think I'm out....

 

Dan clearly stated an in the thread trumped everything else.

 

Mike / Transplant stated in the other thread that he was boarding a plane. Dan wasn't around either. So neither marked the book sold, which was a requirement of the thread and in the meantime, the book sold.

 

If Dan wrote down in his rules "Nobody gets the book unless they post 'Beetlejuice' in the thread" then that would have trumped an

 

It's a silly rule, Beetlejuice or but it was a rule.

 

What people are arguing is emotion, spirit of the rules, who wants the book more, etc.

 

The rules don't take that into account. Only what actually happened.

 

I can't believe I just posted all that.

 

Now can't we all just agree to disagree and draft a clean set of rules explaining how the timestamp works and move on?

 

I hear what you're saying there Roy, I'm just trying to put myself in SpiderDan's position.

 

If it's ME in his position, I'm not backing out of a deal I made, even in this bizarre set of circumstances. Regardless of what the truth really is here, he's put himself in a position to have his credibility questioned. If he's ok with that, that's fine.

 

Myself, I'd rather have people whisper and say, "What a dumbarse, he could've sold it for more", than to be whispering, "He's shady."

[Jaydogrules]

Seller's rule specifically stated first "I'll take it" in thread consummates the deal. First buyer didn't post the sign, he opted to negotiate in PM's at his own peril, mist likely to secure a lower sales price even though the seller ALSO said in his listing the price was firm.

 

it simply does not matter what happened in PM's, including whether or not they agreed to something in principal in PM. Why? BECAUSE THE SELLER CLEARLY STATED IN THE LISTING THAT THE FIRST "I'LL TAKE IT" IN THE THREAD TRUMPS "ALL PM'S". Sorry for the caps right there.

 

The first buyer clearly was aware that he needed to post the "I'll take it" in the thread to cinch the deal. How do we know this? Because he did so. But by then it was too late. Roulette posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread. No negotiating. No haggling. He accepted the seller's terms in full, and complied faithfully with the explicit terms of the listing.

 

The vagaries of contract law, this and that, time stamps in PMs etc, none of that is relevant. The seller stated his terms. He does not need to restate them in PMs. If he changed rules in PM people would be howling in protest even more so.

 

So let's cut the seller a break here. We can all feel sympathy for the buyer who ultimately missed out on the book, but again, he negotiated in PM at his own peril. All he had to do was say "I'll take it per PM" in the thread, if he did in fact intend on accepting dan's counter. Everyone is jumping on dan, but no one is questioning why the first prospective buyer didn't simply post the sign, since dan's listing said he needed to do that.

 

-J.

 

 

Not just a PM though. A PM that resulted in an agreement. It's not like back and forth before finally saying I'll take it in a PM.

 

Does not matter. The buyer rolled the dice by trying to haggle and the earlier bird got the worm. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PMs"

 

-J.

 

He negotiated and reached an agreement. Gambling ended when that agreement came.

 

"I'll take trumps PMs" is not the same as "I'll take it trumps PMs and agreements made in those PMs"

 

Actually it does mean just that. Again the whole point of saying first I'll take it in thread wins is to dissuade time consuming nickel and diming. Even if an agreement was reached in principal the first buyer still had to consummate it in the thread with an I'll take it. Why didn't he just do that ? Why is no one asking that and trying to make it seem like dan dealt in bad faith somehow? His listing rules could not have been more clear. "First I'll take it in thread trumps "ALL PM's".

 

You're distorting the arguments. No one said anything about Dan dealing in bad faith. In fact, many people have said that Dan did nothing out of bad faith...he simply made an error in judgment.

 

If the deal absolutely hinged on who posted in the thread first, then it was clearly the paramount consideration, and no deal should have been made with Tranny without it.

 

Some may not like that he wrote that but it was his listing he can set his rules and I've seen that stipulation plenty of times. Roulette followed the rules, so he should somehow NOT get the book because another buyer wanted to haggle with the seller on his "firm" price? Let's look at both sides here. Fan made the right call. He followed his own listing rules. Roulette gets the book.

 

-J.

 

You are misrepresenting the situation. There was no continued "haggling" going on. The deal was already made before roulette posted.

 

Wrong. "First 'I'll take it' in thread trumps ALL PM's". I'm not "misrepresenting" anything. If the negotiating was done the first buyer should have complied with the terms stated publicly in the listing and posted the sign. But he didn't. Another buyer did. No negotiating. Book sold rightfully to the buyer who actually adhered to the terms of the listing.

 

-J.

[Hado]

Just out of curiosity, have we seen the PMs to know what was really said? I haven't seen them…

Don't think so

[kav]

Why even waste time posting an apology to a first world problem?

 

Boo~Hoo, I didn't get a comic book in a loosely-based sales area.

 

Don't feel bad if you sold it to someone else.

The other person will, and can, find another comic book to be sour about or pound their chest over.

 

It's laughable to see how internet-centric a person can become.

 

Easy resolution, open your front door and walk outside and then proceed to talk to a real life person in front of you.

 

Damn straight!

 

Who do these people think they are, talking about honor and ethics, and that how we handle the little things determines how we handle the big things??

 

Waste of time!

 

 

Are you being serious? Honor and ethics, this is such a petty issue that I wouldn't even think twice about it.

You're being way too dramatic on an internet "COMIC" site to make me even blink and reread your comment.

Book is sold, move along. First world problems are for people without money.

 

Yes, I'm being quite serious.

 

How you behave in the little things determines how you behave in the big things.

 

That is an absolute truth, whether people believe it or not. It always has been, and always will be.

 

In the end, there are no "little things."

 

That's not to say that I don't understand and appreciate your point...but there are larger principles at play, here.

 

Thanks and I appreciate your response.

I believe people need to really pick and choose their battles more appropriately to be seen in a certain light with others.

Do people want to be right or do they want to be happy?

I guess if they want to be right they keep chirping.

I don't care either way. I'm not trying to impress anyone.

Mostly people want to be right

It like, trumps the survival and mating instincts. Everything.

[MCMiles]

Someone give one good reason why a rule "I'll take it in the thread trumps ALL PMs ( including a deal that had previously been agreed on by both parties)".

 

There isn't one.

 

I have to add the part in parenthesis to even make my question clear, that's how uncommon and how ambiguous the rule is. Well, the rule might be common, but that interpretation is not.