APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[kav]

This thread is exhausting

Now I know how people feel when i post constantly

[Bomber-Bob]

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

 

No, we have not seen the PM's to know exactly what was said. However, many here assume they know. Maybe, just maybe, the PM went something like this ....

" I'll offer you x amount for your book"

Dan replies "I can't do that amount with a Paypal"

"Okay, I'll pay by check"".

 

Is the above a deal ? Dan stated he never saw the last reply. He took the thread I'll Take It. All I'm saying is we don't know the actual facts. Do we ?

[universal soldier]

Just to play devil's advocate. Why did the PM buyer bother to post I'll take it in the thread if he thought it was a done deal already?

 

 

 

 

Finally!

 

Either was too busy to post it immediately (something like boarding a plane) and posted without even updating the thread, or (more likely) he did see the post in the PM and was letting that poster know "sorry I already took it".

 

Either way, I guarantee he thought a deal was deal. Like most of us do.

 

 

So....He had time to do all the back and forth PM ing but couldn't take another two seconds to post the I'll take it in the thread? But he found the time a few minutes after roulette did? Come on. The first prospective buyer needs to have some accountability for not adhering to the explicit terms of the listing. He unfortunately realized a bit too late his oversight.

 

-J.

. This could have played out in three seconds. Second One: Dan agrees to deal. Second two: roulette post I'll take it. Second three: Transplant post in thread(which would have been pretty damn fast.

 

Still Tranny's fault? I guess so because it's a stupid rule.

 

But that's "not" what happened. There are infinite variables here, but based on what "actually" happened roulette is the proper buyer. The first buyer did not post the I'll take it in the thread until several minutes after roulette did. He did not consummate the deal. Roulette did site Un seen so to speak. The earlier bird got the worm. How is this not a fair outcome ?

 

 

-J.

I disagree. A deal was consummated. But whatever...

 

Good lord, man we get it. The rule is black and white to you even if it screws people over. The point is: the rule is stupid and people should quit using it. As you said, there are a lot if variables, all of which could cause problems. It also would open the door to sellers directly screwing over people because they didn't post fast enough.

 

We get you don't think Dan did anything wrong. Most don't. I don't, but I would have given the book to Transplant. If I were Roulette, I would have passed the book on to Transplant. However, I don't fault him that he didn't.

 

Do you think that is a good rule? For what reason?

 

 

Yes I think it was a good rule because I understand the intent of it: Dan did not want to haggle he wanted his price he wanted his terms met unquestionably. If a buyer doesn't like the rules of the listing he can say s few this guy and his book and move on. Dan knew he had a hot book with a nice grade and he was "firm" in his price. He warned everyone an unqualified I'll take it in the thread would take the book over "ALL PMs". He is not screwing over anybody by following the rules he set out in the very beginning. Are u suggesting that he should have "changed" his own publicly posted rules and burned roulette, the guy who actually followed the rules ? That just makes no sense.

 

 

-J.

 

That's your interpretation of his intent. I don't think he ever said his price was firm or wasn't willing to haggle.

 

Actually he did say that in this listing. (thumbs u

 

-J.

 

I see that now but my still stands. it's a stupid rule.

[skypinkblu]

I actually don't like it when my buyers post "I'll take it per PM" in the thread. It might give others the impression I'm discounting. I'll just mark the book sold. If someone posts the "take it" before I update, then I explain it sold via PM.

 

Actually, I always assume that an I'll Take It Per PM equates to a discount of some sort.

 

I buy stuff by pm all the time. It rarely has to do with a discount, more of a ..I don't like advertising to the entire outside world what I buy thing. I rarely post in the have a cigar threads and it's not because I've given up shopping. I have books that people start club threads about...just don't feel comfortable posting that stuff publically except on rare occasions.

 

It's more of an "my house has been broken into before thing".

 

I have people buy by pm from me all the time. Sometimes it's time payments, sometimes it "can I pay you Thursday" ...and sometimes it's people like me who don't feel comfortable announcing what is in their house.

 

I finally got stuff back in my safety deposit box, but I still prefer buying by pms for the most part.

 

Honestly, I read Dan's rules another way. I saw them as pertaining to a deal that was not finished. I honor a take it in the thread while someone is discussing terms unless I've put a hold on the book in the thread, I've done that rarely. I don't even remember why, but I thought it was the right thing to do. Once an agreement is made in a pm and the person agrees to take it in the pm, that person gets the book if no one else has posted before. There are no longer negotiations going on, so it's a done deal. I usually ask if the person wants to post a take it in the thread or they want me to, but it's still in my mind, done.

 

Dan has the right to do as he wishes, and I'm glad he apologized for his misstatement about the net he would received....I just would have done it differently...but that's me.

 

We really aren't going to get anywhere with this, it's done. It's not going to change.

 

Hopefully, sellers will take this as a lesson to be very very clear.

[MCMiles]

Just to play devil's advocate. Why did the PM buyer bother to post I'll take it in the thread if he thought it was a done deal already?

 

 

 

 

Finally!

 

Either was too busy to post it immediately (something like boarding a plane) and posted without even updating the thread, or (more likely) he did see the post in the PM and was letting that poster know "sorry I already took it".

 

Either way, I guarantee he thought a deal was deal. Like most of us do.

 

 

So....He had time to do all the back and forth PM ing but couldn't take another two seconds to post the I'll take it in the thread? But he found the time a few minutes after roulette did? Come on. The first prospective buyer needs to have some accountability for not adhering to the explicit terms of the listing. He unfortunately realized a bit too late his oversight.

 

-J.

. This could have played out in three seconds. Second One: Dan agrees to deal. Second two: roulette post I'll take it. Second three: Transplant post in thread(which would have been pretty damn fast.

 

Still Tranny's fault? I guess so because it's a stupid rule.

 

But that's "not" what happened. There are infinite variables here, but based on what "actually" happened roulette is the proper buyer. The first buyer did not post the I'll take it in the thread until several minutes after roulette did. He did not consummate the deal. Roulette did site Un seen so to speak. The earlier bird got the worm. How is this not a fair outcome ?

 

 

-J.

I disagree. A deal was consummated. But whatever...

 

Good lord, man we get it. The rule is black and white to you even if it screws people over. The point is: the rule is stupid and people should quit using it. As you said, there are a lot if variables, all of which could cause problems. It also would open the door to sellers directly screwing over people because they didn't post fast enough.

 

We get you don't think Dan did anything wrong. Most don't. I don't, but I would have given the book to Transplant. If I were Roulette, I would have passed the book on to Transplant. However, I don't fault him that he didn't.

 

Do you think that is a good rule? For what reason?

 

 

Yes I think it was a good rule because I understand the intent of it: Dan did not want to haggle he wanted his price he wanted his terms met unquestionably. If a buyer doesn't like the rules of the listing he can say s few this guy and his book and move on. Dan knew he had a hot book with a nice grade and he was "firm" in his price. He warned everyone an unqualified I'll take it in the thread would take the book over "ALL PMs". He is not screwing over anybody by following the rules he set out in the very beginning. Are u suggesting that he should have "changed" his own publicly posted rules and burned roulette, the guy who actually followed the rules ? That just makes no sense.

 

 

-J.

 

Dan did not want to haggle he wanted his price he wanted his terms met unquestionably.

 

As you like to say. That's not what happened. Dan entered into negotiations and even settled on a deal. So did Dan follow his own rules?

 

It is good to know you think it is a good rule. (thumbs u

 

 

Of course he did. He sold the book to the first "I'll take it" in the thread. Done and done.

 

-J.

 

I'm sure you know that wasn't the question. Enough of this futility.

[Bomber-Bob]

That's your interpretation of his intent. I don't think he ever said his price was firm or wasn't willing to haggle.

 

Look at the first page of his Sales Thread. He clearly states the PRICE IS FIRM.

[ttfitz]

Let's boil it down to its essence:

 

Tranny: "Will you take this much?"

 

Dan: "No, but I will take this much."

 

Tranny: "Done."

 

Deal done.

 

Dan agreed to it. Tranny agreed to it. It was a done deal.

 

Then, because someone else came along and posted in the thread, Dan changed his mind about the "doneness" of the deal. This is where his contradiction sits. He contradicted himself, first by doing the deal, then by UNdoing the deal.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Had roulette not come along, there still would have been a sale. If Tranny had posted the take it emoticon before roulette, the book would be his.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting Dan has any selfish or greedy motives. I'm simply saying that he didn't follow his rule, by ACCEPTING AN OFFER before all the conditions were met, conditions he, himself, laid out. Tranny didn't meet the ORIGINAL terms...Dan should not have accepted the offer (by virtue of a counter) until he did.

 

Does that make sense...?

 

Following your template:

 

Tranny: will you take this much

 

Dan: no I'll take this much

 

You're assuming Dan knew the next PM was I'll take it, when it could have been more haggling or a no thank you. He did say he hadn't read the PM until after the buyer popped the BIN in the thread.

 

Doesn't matter if Dan read it or not, because the PM is timestamped. Once Dan made the counter, he was committed to it. He was saying "if you accept this price, we have a deal." Tranny accepted it, BEFORE roulette posted. Deal done.

I guess in my mind there has always been a step after what you're describing.

 

Where if I offer a price, you agree, I aknowledge the sale

 

Though I guess that doesn't conform to the letter of the law.

 

So if you post a sales thread, someone posts the , it sounds like you feel it is required for you to post before it's all said and done?

[Jaydogrules]

Guys are now just debating the "stupidity" of the rule. That's a perfectly fine opinion to have. Again, if you as a prospective buyer do not like the terms of a listing you are free to pass on the book. No one twisted any body's arms to make a play on the book.

 

-J.

[Hado]

Let's boil it down to its essence:

 

Tranny: "Will you take this much?"

 

Dan: "No, but I will take this much."

 

Tranny: "Done."

 

Deal done.

 

Dan agreed to it. Tranny agreed to it. It was a done deal.

 

Then, because someone else came along and posted in the thread, Dan changed his mind about the "doneness" of the deal. This is where his contradiction sits. He contradicted himself, first by doing the deal, then by UNdoing the deal.

 

This is a contradiction.

 

Had roulette not come along, there still would have been a sale. If Tranny had posted the take it emoticon before roulette, the book would be his.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting Dan has any selfish or greedy motives. I'm simply saying that he didn't follow his rule, by ACCEPTING AN OFFER before all the conditions were met, conditions he, himself, laid out. Tranny didn't meet the ORIGINAL terms...Dan should not have accepted the offer (by virtue of a counter) until he did.

 

Does that make sense...?

 

Following your template:

 

Tranny: will you take this much

 

Dan: no I'll take this much

 

You're assuming Dan knew the next PM was I'll take it, when it could have been more haggling or a no thank you. He did say he hadn't read the PM until after the buyer popped the BIN in the thread.

 

Doesn't matter if Dan read it or not, because the PM is timestamped. Once Dan made the counter, he was committed to it. He was saying "if you accept this price, we have a deal." Tranny accepted it, BEFORE roulette posted. Deal done.

I guess in my mind there has always been a step after what you're describing.

 

Where if I offer a price, you agree, I aknowledge the sale

 

Though I guess that doesn't conform to the letter of the law.

 

So if you post a sales thread, someone posts the , it sounds like you feel it is required for you to post before it's all said and done?

Before I answer that, do you subscribe to sellers being able to have an unpublished list of people they won't sell to?

 

And my scenario was PM negotiations, not an outright

[MCMiles]

That's your interpretation of his intent. I don't think he ever said his price was firm or wasn't willing to haggle.

 

Look at the first page of his Sales Thread. He clearly states the PRICE IS FIRM.

 

But apparently was not. He entered into negotiations, even settled on them. Sort of throws the whole first post and rules out the window at that point.

 

Again, I don't think Dan intentionally tried to screw anyone and understand the thought process of awarding the book to roulette. I just think this can be easily avoided.

[bababooey]

Actually this "rule" gives the seller less latitude since he is putting himself at the mercy of what is publicly posted.

 

 

The mercy of a full price I'll take it? Oh drat!

The latitude relates to "who" not how much.

 

[MCMiles]

Actually this "rule" gives the seller less latitude since he is putting himself at the mercy of what is publicly posted.

 

 

The mercy of a full price I'll take it? Oh drat!

The latitude relates to "who" not how much.

 

That is a good point.

[Jaydogrules]

That's your interpretation of his intent. I don't think he ever said his price was firm or wasn't willing to haggle.

 

Look at the first page of his Sales Thread. He clearly states the PRICE IS FIRM.

 

But apparently was not. He entered into negotiations, even settled on them. Sort of throws the whole first post and rules out the window at that point.

 

Again, I don't think Dan intentionally tried to screw anyone and understand the thought process of awarding the book to roulette. I just think this can be easily avoided.

 

Actually no it doesn't because, again, and forgive me for being a broken record here, Dan covered his bases by saying "first I'll take it in the thread trumps ALL PMs". Roulette took that statement to heart, no way should he lose out on the book to another prospective buyer who opted to try to wheel and deal with a guy who said upfront his price was firm.

 

 

-J.

[Bomber-Bob]

I put a bid on a Clink BIN listing. I received a counter offer. A small time window transpired as I did not see the counteroffer immediately. When I went to accept the offer someone else had hit the BIN and the book was gone.

According to RMA and some of the Board Lawyers should I not have been entitled to the book ? The Seller's counter offer should have been binding.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I put a bid on a Clink BIN listing. I received a counter offer. A small time window transpired as I did not see the counteroffer immediately. When I went to accept the offer someone else had hit the BIN and the book was gone.

According to RMA and some of the Board Lawyers should I not have been entitled to the book ? The Seller's counter offer should have been binding.

 

You're ignoring that the buyer, in this case, had already seemingly agreed to terms. There are not the same...

[Steeler Nick]

 

It should be this simple.

 

Hell the whole "rules" thing could be this simple.

 

Time stamp wins.

 

Easy.

 

To prevent the what ifs: Timestamp, without conditions, wins.

 

Cue 14 pages defining "conditions" and 12 more defining "without".

 

Impossible for another member to really verify timestamp of a PM. Just gotta take the respective parties word for it.

 

I like the OPs rule. It is transparent. If you agree to buy it in the thread you get it.

 

In this case, agreement to purchase, without conditions, won.

 

That is the risk a buyer takes with PM haggling.

 

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

 

It should be this simple.

 

Hell the whole "rules" thing could be this simple.

 

Time stamp wins.

 

Easy.

 

To prevent the what ifs: Timestamp, without conditions, wins.

 

Cue 14 pages defining "conditions" and 12 more defining "without".

 

Impossible for another member to really verify timestamp of a PM. Just gotta take the respective parties word for it.

 

I like the OPs rule. It is transparent. If you agree to buy it in the thread you get it.

 

In this case, agreement to purchase, without conditions, won.

 

That is the risk a buyer takes with PM haggling.

 

 

A screen cap would verify the time and date. It can easily be verified.

[Jaydogrules]

I put a bid on a Clink BIN listing. I received a counter offer. A small time window transpired as I did not see the counteroffer immediately. When I went to accept the offer someone else had hit the BIN and the book was gone.

According to RMA and some of the Board Lawyers should I not have been entitled to the book ? The Seller's counter offer should have been binding.

 

You're ignoring that the buyer, in this case, had already seemingly agreed to terms. There are not the same...

 

It's the same because the seller said PMs mean nothing if someone posts I'll take it in thread. Effectively a De facto "buy it NOW".

 

-J.

[Jaydogrules]

 

It should be this simple.

 

Hell the whole "rules" thing could be this simple.

 

Time stamp wins.

 

Easy.

 

To prevent the what ifs: Timestamp, without conditions, wins.

 

Cue 14 pages defining "conditions" and 12 more defining "without".

 

Impossible for another member to really verify timestamp of a PM. Just gotta take the respective parties word for it.

 

I like the OPs rule. It is transparent. If you agree to buy it in the thread you get it.

 

In this case, agreement to purchase, without conditions, won.

 

That is the risk a buyer takes with PM haggling.

 

 

A screen cap would verify the time and date. It can easily be verified.

 

And it would be completely irrelevant because the "I'll take it" in the thread by roulette "trumped" all of it.

 

-J.

[Chaseman210]

I don't think anything is going to be settled over this back and forth. Some believe Dan was right, others that he was wrong. No matter anybody's opinion, Dan did what he stated in his rules. I personally would've tried to work it out and sell the book to transplant, but I also would've taken the time to post if I had agreed on a deal as a buyer or a seller. Since both were away from the computer, it's easy for people to say that Dan should've given the book to Transplant. If that would've happened, I'm sure there would be other board members who would complain and say Dan didn't follow his own rules that he set in the thread about winning over ALL PMs. It was a no-win situation for Dan (except for the money he made) and can easily be cleared up in any seller's future threads so they don't find themselves in this situation.