APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[HarveySwick]

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

I think the agreed upon synopsis was:

 

Transplant: "Would you take $x for the book?"

 

Dan: "If you paid cash or check, sure."

 

Transplant: "Done."

 

Ten minutes later: in the thread.

[VintageComics]

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?

 

Because he was too busy? Because he assumed Transplant would have read and assumed the rules? Who knows. I don't think either thought much about it and didn't think it was going to end up like this.

 

I drove to Florida once and I got lost. Then I pulled a u-turn on the turnpike I was on.

 

All the lady could say, over and over to me was that "You don't pull a u-turn on the turnpike" like it didn't matter that I had little kids with me in the car, that I was lost at 2AM in the morning and that I had no idea that I wasn't even supposed to pull a u-turn on the turnpike.

 

All that matters was that the rules stated that I pulled a u-turn on the turpike. Even if I thought it was a stupid rule. So I had to pay the full fare and she intimated that I'm lucky she doesn't call the police.

 

And that is why I have always believed that rules don't leave room for mercy (or doing what is right in the spirit of the law) in and of themselves. It comes down to personal interpretation. That is why rules are constantly reinterpreted and rewritten. Because sometimes they are stupid and they can be unfair (and you have to follow them even if they are unfair until they are made more fair officially).

 

Let's get with the program folks - it was a rule that was probably difficult for all to abide by and let's rewrite it officially.

 

 

[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.

 

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.

 

But who wants to be right, really? Tranny's not arguing his case. Roulette's not arguing his case. Dan briefly did, and then is out. Can we discuss important principles about fair play without it being a "you just want to be right" thing..?

[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.

 

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.

 

You said "so he should somehow NOT get the book because another buyer wanted to haggle with the seller on his "firm" price?"

 

That is not what happened.

 

It is a misrepresentation of the situation.

[ImageMask]

Can someone find the post I made some time ago asking if we should do away with the "i'll take it" via PM due to these problems. Or did it go poof? Cause if I remember right I was called butt-hurt and ridiculed.

[mikenyc]

Since this abomination is still going on here's a simple question:

 

Who posted the first, Mike in PM or the buyer in the thread?

 

If the buyer in the thread posted first by time stamp then it's his book. If Mike posted first in PM it should be his book.

 

I'm not sure what I'm missing.

[VintageComics]

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.

 

I agree that it's uncommon and ambigous, and that is why I think it should be rewritten or done away.

 

Ambiguous rules are written every day in those forums. Every day.

 

 

[bababooey]

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?

 

1. Yes I believe a deal was reached where a counter received a

2. He has no obligation to reiterate a rule clearly stated where the book was listed for sale.

 

Could both have been handled better? Yes.

Is this the way this rule is designed to work? Yes.

 

The flawed argument being put forward that the "rules are out the window once he starts negotiating" is silly - a seller can negotiate all he wants while operating under the rule, the difference is the public record to consummate the deal must be posted to finalize it.

 

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

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

I think the agreed upon synopsis was:

 

Transplant: "Would you take $x for the book?"

 

Dan: "If you paid cash or check, sure."

 

Transplant: "Done."

 

Ten minutes later: :take it: in the thread.

 

Yea I posted that. I still wouldn't mind actual PMs though… I just wonder if it is exactly how it played out.

[kav]

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.

 

I agree that it's uncommon and ambigous, and that is why I think it should be rewritten or done away.

 

Ambiguous rules are written every day in those forums. Every day.

 

Not in The Giving Tree

[ItsJustRyan]

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

 

Ask Arch to look for you

[kav]

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

 

Ask Arch to look for you

PM sent

[ChrisInBaltimore]

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?

 

Because he was too busy? Because he assumed Transplant would have read and assumed the rules? Who knows. I don't think either thought much about it and didn't think it was going to end up like this.

 

I drove to Florida once and I got lost. Then I pulled a u-turn on the turnpike I was on.

 

All the lady could say, over and over to me was that "You don't pull a u-turn on the turnpike" like it didn't matter that I had little kids with me in the car, that I was lost at 2AM in the morning and that I had no idea that I wasn't even supposed to pull a u-turn on the turnpike.

 

All that matters was that the rules stated that I pulled a u-turn on the turpike. Even if I thought it was a stupid rule. So I had to pay the full fare and she intimated that I'm lucky she doesn't call the police.

 

And that is why I have always believed that rules don't leave room for mercy (or doing what is right in the spirit of the law) in and of themselves. It comes down to personal interpretation. That is why rules are constantly reinterpreted and rewritten. Because sometimes they are stupid and they can be unfair (and you have to follow them even if they are unfair until they are made more fair officially).

 

Let's get with the program folks - it was a rule that was probably difficult for all to abide by and let's rewrite it officially.

 

 

I had a lady pull a u-turn illegally on me. I ran right in to her because she was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person and I have a huge scar on my head. My truck has never been the same either.

 

I don't have sympathy for people who make random u-turns.

[VintageComics]

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?

 

1. Yes I believe a deal was reached where a counter received a

2. He has no obligation to reiterate a rule clearly stated where the book was listed for sale.

 

Could both have been handled better? Yes.

Is this the way this rule is designed to work? Yes.

 

The flawed argument being put forward that the "rules are out the window once he starts negotiating" is silly - a seller can negotiate all he wants while operating under the rule, the difference is the public record to consummate the deal must be posted to finalize it.

 

And that was my understanding of what Dan wanted.

 

Dan said in this thread that he wanted a public record of the sale so that people couldn't accuse him of playing favorites and that is why he made the rule a part of his selling thread. To put the onus on the buyer to post the public record.

 

I'm guessing that Transplant thought it was just a sales tactic to get people to throw down the in the thread to beat out any negotiations but assumed that the deal was consummated when both had agreed on a common ground.

 

Dan in the meantime (while Transplant was assuming it was a done deal) was probably still waiting for Transplant to post an

 

 

[bababooey]

Since this abomination is still going on here's a simple question:

 

Who posted the first, Mike in PM or the buyer in the thread?

 

If the buyer in the thread posted first by time stamp then it's his book. If Mike posted first in PM it should be his book.

 

I'm not sure what I'm missing.

Seller used rules similar to Rupp's where the "take it in the thread trumps all PMs"

 

Time stamp favoured PM buyer, "in the thread" got the book.

 

 

[romanheart]

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?

 

Because he was too busy? Because he assumed Transplant would have read and assumed the rules? Who knows. I don't think either thought much about it and didn't think it was going to end up like this.

 

I drove to Florida once and I got lost. Then I pulled a u-turn on the turnpike I was on.

 

All the lady could say, over and over to me was that "You don't pull a u-turn on the turnpike" like it didn't matter that I had little kids with me in the car, that I was lost at 2AM in the morning and that I had no idea that I wasn't even supposed to pull a u-turn on the turnpike.

 

All that matters was that the rules stated that I pulled a u-turn on the turpike. Even if I thought it was a stupid rule. So I had to pay the full fare and she intimated that I'm lucky she doesn't call the police.

 

And that is why I have always believed that rules don't leave room for mercy (or doing what is right in the spirit of the law) in and of themselves. It comes down to personal interpretation. That is why rules are constantly reinterpreted and rewritten. Because sometimes they are stupid and they can be unfair (and you have to follow them even if they are unfair until they are made more fair officially).

 

Let's get with the program folks - it was a rule that was probably difficult for all to abide by and let's rewrite it officially.

 

 

I had a lady pull a u-turn illegally on me. I ran right in to her because she was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person and I have a huge scar on my head. My truck has never been the same either.

 

I don't have sympathy for people who make random u-turns.

 

WTF

 

What was that about?

[VintageComics]

I had a lady pull a u-turn illegally on me. I ran right in to her because she was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person and I have a huge scar on my head. My truck has never been the same either.

 

I don't have sympathy for people who make random u-turns.

 

Not that your story has anything to do with this thread but my u-turn wasn't random - it was like 2 AM and there wasn't another car on the road.

 

And u-turns are legal in many areas. (thumbs u

[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.

 

You said "so he should somehow NOT get the book because another buyer wanted to haggle with the seller on his "firm" price?"

 

That is not what happened.

 

It is a misrepresentation of the situation.

 

Again, no. If the first buyer did not want to negotiate he would have simply thrown up the sign and been done with it. I don't buy that he was "too busy" to do it after having already supposedly PM ing back and forth, or forgot to do it or didn't refresh his screen until suddenly a few minutes after another buyer decided to pull the trigger and accept the seller's terms in full. I am by no means disparaging the first prospective buyer, but I do believe he made an honest mistake and dropped the ball a little and it did cost him the book he wanted. He really just should have thrown up the sign if negotiations were really done, it would have literally taken him two seconds to do that to secure the book. As I said earlier his failure to do so could very easily have been interpreted by the seller as an "oh, maybe he's still needing to think about it after all". I'm not saying that's what happened but that would be a reasonable thought if the first buyer fails to adhere to the terms of the listing to consummate everything. Had the first buyer simply done that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So why is this dan's fault ?

 

-J.

[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?

 

1. Yes I believe a deal was reached where a counter received a

2. He has no obligation to reiterate a rule clearly stated where the book was listed for sale.

 

Could both have been handled better? Yes.

Is this the way this rule is designed to work? Yes.

 

The flawed argument being put forward that the "rules are out the window once he starts negotiating" is silly - a seller can negotiate all he wants while operating under the rule, the difference is the public record to consummate the deal must be posted to finalize it.

 

I agree. I just think we were beyond the negotiation point and at the deal being consummated point. All that was needed is Dan or Transplant to post an in the thread. Dan SHOULD have said - there has been a mistake, the book was already sold. I didn't get a chance to update the thread.

 

And that's JUST an opinion and nothing more. Dan obviously felt otherwise and did otherwise. And I get that if he went with Transplant, people would be arguing that the book should be Joey's per the rules. I guess it all comes down to:

 

(1) common sense being used in business transactions

 

vs.

 

(2) technical interpretation of clearly stated rules

[MCMiles]

Since this abomination is still going on here's a simple question:

 

Who posted the first, Mike in PM or the buyer in the thread?

 

If the buyer in the thread posted first by time stamp then it's his book. If Mike posted first in PM it should be his book.

 

I'm not sure what I'm missing.

 

Transplant didn't post an actual "take it" in the PM. However, Dan responded to an offer with his terms and Transplant responded ok before the "take it" in the thread was posted.