APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[N/A]

[N/A]

[roulette44]

Fellow forumites:

 

First - wow! I can't believe the amount of drama and argument that ensued. I didn't realize this was going on, but believe I should atleast say something.

 

It's a tough situation, and I'm not a lawyer, but my gut told me that we had a grey-area situation.

 

What's sad to me is that Dan didn't mean for this to happen, I'm sure atleast most agree with that. He put his rules in the thread, but there are a couple of unintended consequences in the structure. I think a lesson learned (for me in sales threads) is to be clear that the timestamp of the post governs (if I'm okay with people winning without declaring in the thread) OR stipulating that supersedes anything and must be posted in the thread to be viable.

 

As for my situation, I didn't know what to do, and I don't know Mike, but I sent him a PM. I asked him if he was okay. His response was a little snippy with me, but he's upset and I understand, I would have been upset too. But I don't deserve the response.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think most agree (now, even if they didn't before),

that more clarity is sales threads is a good thing. I'm not speaking to contract law, just the associated optics. And it makes the environment more pleasant.

 

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

I think we should let this thread fizzle and start a new one focused on sales thread rules that everyone wants, including all that posted in this thread (I think).

 

Enjoy your weekend. I'm headed to TMNT and hope my three young kids don't think it's too scary and make me leave early. They've already complained about their "necks" being gross

 

Cheers

Joey

[romanheart]

And yet you guys keep coming back to check in on the thread

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

[budsbundy]

I've bought from Dan several times with never an issue. He's a a good guy here and I'd hate to think anythkng he did was on purpose.

 

Perhaps cut him some slack as he has had many successful non-problematic sales here.

 

This is not about Dan, this is about lousy writing of your terms as a seller, and an inability to keep things working smooth. The sales forum is going downhill lately, and eventually the mods are going to want it gone as it creates too much drama.

 

I respect your opinion of dan's listing even though I disagree. I found it to be quite clear. If anyone found it off putting they could have passed on the book. Yes his listing was aggressive it was designed to create competition among buyers and a sense of urgency to perform. He wanted to get a deal done quick. Roulette chose to jump through dan's hoops first so to speak. For roulette there were no points to haggle or discuss in PMs. Therefore according to the listing rules, his first "I'll take it" in the thread "trumped" everything else that may or may not have been happening in the background.

 

-J.

I couldn't read anymore of your posts before replying

You don't seem to understand what happened here.

They were not "still haggling" like you keep saying.

It was a done deal, agreement reached, Dan should have immediately closed the thread, and if someone posted an before he was able to close the thread, than Dan should have politely informed them that the book had ALREADY SOLD(I put this in caps as it seems to be the part you are missing here) in a pm.

[namisgr]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

That's asking a lot of a buyer, since it's the seller's responsibility to run a fair sale.

[PIR8]

And yet you guys keep coming back to check in on the thread

 

Its like the end of a bad movie you've seen before, you know whats going to happen, but you have to see it through.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

That's asking a lot of a buyer, since it's the seller's responsibility to run a fair sale.

 

A buyer who already has a 7.0 copy? When this was going to happen?

 

It happens all the time in sales threads…

[roulette44]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

My statement means I couldn't have avoiding becoming a part of it all at, because i have no way to know what's going on.

 

I did reach out to Mike when I found out - to see if he was okay.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

My statement means I couldn't have avoiding becoming a part of it all at, because i have no way to know what's going on.

 

I did reach out to Mike when I found out - to see if he was okay.

 

But you didn't defer to him? Or offer him the book?

 

You're right you didn't know it was going to happen, but this could have been avoided.

[HighStakesComics]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

I practice law in Ohio, and i don't have any problem with it.

 

Just curious, Sean. Whereabouts in Ohio and what type of law? Fellow Buckeye myself .

[roulette44]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

My statement means I couldn't have avoiding becoming a part of it all at, because i have no way to know what's going on.

 

I did reach out to Mike when I found out - to see if he was okay.

 

But you didn't defer to him? Or offer him the book?

 

You're right you didn't know it was going to happen, but this could have been avoided.

 

I reached out to him to see if he was okay. His response informed where I went from there. Again , I realize he's upset and I would be too, but none of that was my fault.

 

And you say I could have avoided all this? By doing that, I would be overtly insulting the owner of the sales thread, and someone I've done business with before. That doesn't seem so cut and dried to me either.

 

I think enough has been said unless the others involved want more.

 

Joey

[seanfingh]

Dayton area.

[COI]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

Wrong. Your premise is flawed. The rules did not say that an needed to be placed into a thread to complete a deal. It said that in the thread TRUMPS everything else. SD made a deal with Transplant. Offer, acceptance, consideration. He then used his TRUMP card to void out his deal with Transplant. So this is not an "additional or different terms" argument, it is "I have placed terms that allow me to void this type of agreement out anytime I want." If Joey never posted and Transplant paid, would the book have been his. Of course. It was only Joey's, because SD voided out his agreement with Transplant. I have a hard time believing a court would uphold this type of insane voidable agreement.

 

Maybe they would, but the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

 

Legal analysis epeen deployed.

[greggy]

Dayton area.

You rule...kinda

[Park]

I've bought from Dan several times with never an issue. He's a a good guy here and I'd hate to think anythkng he did was on purpose.

 

Perhaps cut him some slack as he has had many successful non-problematic sales here.

 

This is not about Dan, this is about lousy writing of your terms as a seller, and an inability to keep things working smooth. The sales forum is going downhill lately, and eventually the mods are going to want it gone as it creates too much drama.

 

I respect your opinion of dan's listing even though I disagree. I found it to be quite clear. If anyone found it off putting they could have passed on the book. Yes his listing was aggressive it was designed to create competition among buyers and a sense of urgency to perform. He wanted to get a deal done quick. Roulette chose to jump through dan's hoops first so to speak. For roulette there were no points to haggle or discuss in PMs. Therefore according to the listing rules, his first "I'll take it" in the thread "trumped" everything else that may or may not have been happening in the background.

 

-J.

I couldn't read anymore of your posts before replying

You don't seem to understand what happened here.

They were not "still haggling" like you keep saying.

It was a done deal, agreement reached, Dan should have immediately closed the thread, and if someone posted an before he was able to close the thread, than Dan should have politely informed them that the book had ALREADY SOLD(I put this in caps as it seems to be the part you are missing here) in a pm.

 

I agree with this and it has been backed up Transplant that the haggling was done.

 

Even if Dan didn't read his PMs for a week, Transplant completed negotiations before Roulette's post. There was no public requirement for Transplant to fulfill.

 

Take it trumping all PMs does not mean Transplant had to post publicly. That's as close to black and white as this whole situation is going to get.

[Park]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

Wrong. Your premise is flawed. The rules did not say that an needed to be placed into a thread to complete a deal. It said that in the thread TRUMPS everything else. SD made a deal with Transplant. Offer, acceptance, consideration. He then used his TRUMP card to void out his deal with Transplant. So this is not an "additional or different terms" argument, it is "I have placed terms that allow me to void this type of agreement out anytime I want." If Joey never posted and Transplant paid, would the book have been his. Of course. It was only Joey's, because SD voided out his agreement with Transplant. I have a hard time believing a court would uphold this type of insane voidable agreement.

 

Maybe they would, but the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

 

Legal analysis epeen deployed.

 

LSAT scores will be next.

 

 

[COI]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

Wrong. Your premise is flawed. The rules did not say that an needed to be placed into a thread to complete a deal. It said that in the thread TRUMPS everything else. SD made a deal with Transplant. Offer, acceptance, consideration. He then used his TRUMP card to void out his deal with Transplant. So this is not an "additional or different terms" argument, it is "I have placed terms that allow me to void this type of agreement out anytime I want." If Joey never posted and Transplant paid, would the book have been his. Of course. It was only Joey's, because SD voided out his agreement with Transplant. I have a hard time believing a court would uphold this type of insane voidable agreement.

 

Maybe they would, but the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

 

Legal analysis epeen deployed.

 

LSAT scores will be next.

 

 

I got my ehand on my ezipper in anticipation.

[thirdgreenham]

I dislike having been associated with the thread in any way, and there was nothing I could do to avoid it (didn't know about the PMs going on). I feel badly for Mike, for Dan, and for me.

 

You could have deferred to the person who took the book first. You can't really say "There was nothing I could do"…

 

It's unfair to put Joey in that position. He has done nothing wrong but follow Dan's stoopid rules.