APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

A deal was made between both parties via PM. Booth parties went on about other business.

 

After that an I'll take it was posted in the thread.

 

Because the rules say "...trumps ALL PMs" the first deal was abandoned by the seller, which by his rules allows him to do so.

 

Seriously, do people think this is rule of "I'll take it in the thread trumps all" (including done deals) is a good way of doing it? Do people really think it's a better way than using a time stamp (definitive proof) to determine who bought the book first?

 

The absolute only benefit of that is to the seller. It could prompt people to buy quickly rather than send an offer,(i get that) or allow the seller to back out of a deal to take a better price or a preferred customer. (shady)

 

If time stamp rules is in affect, the worst thing that could happen is a public buyer be told that it already sold via PM, which they should be aware that it might be especially if it had been sitting there for more than 60 seconds.

At least no one that thinks they actually have a deal in place is going to get burnt.

 

Maybe Transplant should have been aware that unless he posted in the thread, he could still get trumped, but since it's very uncommon to make a deal and then it be broken in this way, I'm certain he didn't consider it. I'm sure most would not.

 

I'm in full agreement with this post. It is confusing and yet technically Dan didn't do anything wrong.

 

And that is why last week or the week before I was trying to put a big push in making timestamp sales the norm in the selling rules.

 

 

Technically, Dan DID do something wrong: he abandoned a done deal, which was thought as "done" by the buyer, based upon the words of the seller.

 

 

Look, I disagree but this is what makes the world go 'round and why politicians never win - it's only degrees of losing: different people see different things.

 

The best thing to do here is not to argue whether Dan did something wrong or Mike did something wrong, because the forum will just be divided. IMO the best thing to do here is to prevent it from happening again.

 

 

 

I agree (especially about the politics). However, I think that Spider Dan admitted fault when he started the thread. He knew he'd done something wrong.

 

I don't think you can necessarily come to that conclusion, but it's a compelling argument.

 

I also think starting a CG thread just put a huge bullseye on him and his sales thread.

 

Agreed.

 

And again, lest Dan think otherwise: this is nothing personal, so please don't take it personally. You just happen to highlight an issue that has happened multiple times. There's a way to resolve it, but not everyone agrees with that.

 

 

[Bio-Rupp]

A deal was made between both parties via PM. Booth parties went on about other business.

 

After that an I'll take it was posted in the thread.

 

Because the rules say "...trumps ALL PMs" the first deal was abandoned by the seller, which by his rules allows him to do so.

 

Seriously, do people think this is rule of "I'll take it in the thread trumps all" (including done deals) is a good way of doing it? Do people really think it's a better way than using a time stamp (definitive proof) to determine who bought the book first?

 

The absolute only benefit of that is to the seller. It could prompt people to buy quickly rather than send an offer,(i get that) or allow the seller to back out of a deal to take a better price or a preferred customer. (shady)

 

If time stamp rules is in affect, the worst thing that could happen is a public buyer be told that it already sold via PM, which they should be aware that it might be especially if it had been sitting there for more than 60 seconds.

At least no one that thinks they actually have a deal in place is going to get burnt.

 

Maybe Transplant should have been aware that unless he posted in the thread, he could still get trumped, but since it's very uncommon to make a deal and then it be broken in this way, I'm certain he didn't consider it. I'm sure most would not.

 

I'm in full agreement with this post. It is confusing and yet technically Dan didn't do anything wrong.

 

And that is why last week or the week before I was trying to put a big push in making timestamp sales the norm in the selling rules.

 

 

Technically, Dan DID do something wrong: he abandoned a done deal, which was thought as "done" by the buyer, based upon the words of the seller.

 

 

Look, I disagree but this is what makes the world go 'round and why politicians never win - it's only degrees of losing: different people see different things.

 

The best thing to do here is not to argue whether Dan did something wrong or Mike did something wrong, because the forum will just be divided. IMO the best thing to do here is to prevent it from happening again.

 

 

 

I agree (especially about the politics). However, I think that Spider Dan admitted fault when he started the thread. He knew he'd done something wrong.

 

I also think starting a CG thread just put a huge bullseye on him and his sales thread.

 

Going to have to agree with this.

 

Any public thread with the term "oblique reference" posted is going to be a barn-burner

[PIR8]

Because we are used to that sort of information, it's confusing as to why he didn't but I do believe technically, those rules were spelled out in the first post.

 

I too would have sold the book to Mike, but I understand why Dan didn't.

 

And that is why we are here.

 

 

If Tranny didn't understand that he HAD to post take it in the thread before the deal was final, then Dan didn't make it clear in his direct discussion with Tranny.

 

"But it was right there, in his first post!"

 

Yes, but that doesn't *really* matter in direct negotiations. It is incumbent upon the seller to make sure the buyer understands any and all terms, or the deal isn't final.

 

Tranny thought it was final, and was led to believe it was final by Dan.

 

OK. So we just disagree on who's responsability it was to make sure the buyer understood the terms of the sale. I think it being posted in the thread was all the notification he needed, but you think because the negotiations were via PM (and not in the thread) that they should have been restated.

 

 

 

 

On eBay, who is responsible for the listing's terms? The buyer, or the seller?

 

 

The term was central to the sale, as we have discovered. Dan should not, in any way, have accepted (by virtue of making the counter), that offer and not made it clear that the deal was not final until such-and-such action was also completed.

 

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

On eBay it's the buyers responsibility to understand the terms of the deal. It's the sellers responsibly to list them (once).

 

If I negotiate a deal via PM on ebay, and accept someone's offer, again, through PM. And then someone hits the BuyItNow before they can do what needs to be done to complete that deal (on ebay it would be making the agreed upon offer through the listing, in our case it would be posting 'take it' in the thread per the rules) who should the buyer send the book to?

 

eBay says the buyer who popped BuyItNow and I would agree with them.

 

[Bio-Rupp]

I'd like to apologize to Transplant for posting so much

 

You're awesome Kav

 

[VintageComics]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

And you well know that the abundance of popularity doesn't therefore prove the worthiness of an action.

 

 

Agreed that popular isn't necessarily right, but I also think people are slowly realizing why it happened.

 

In the past it happened because people posted 'usual rules'.

 

It happened here because Mike wasn't used to the rule of having to post something in the thread and Dan wants what some consider an unusual extra step.

 

...and that is why the rules need a revamp IMO - to avoid confusion.

[comix4fun]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

 

True.

 

Many forum members have a very strict interpretation of the rules when they apply them to others while demanding deference and leeway for themselves. It may just be human nature to be duplicitous in this way but it pervades dealings here with many sellers and buyers.

 

Empathy has fallen into entropy.

 

No point in continuing this. The only thing to do is learn from it, move on, and always seek to hold your trading partner to the exact same level of rule forgiveness you would want for yourself.

 

That's a tall order when many people place the whims of their own navel above all else.

[Bio-Rupp]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

And you well know that the abundance of popularity doesn't therefore prove the worthiness of an action.

 

 

Agreed that popular isn't necessarily right, but I also think people are slowly realizing why it happened.

 

In the past it happened because people posted 'usual rules'.

 

It happened here because Mike wasn't used to the rule of having to post something in the thread and Dan wants what some consider an unusual extra step.

 

...and that is why the rules need a revamp IMO - to avoid confusion.

 

Not necessarily an "unusual extra step". We had a boardie sell an item via PM just the other day and he was tackled with "accusations" implying that his book didn't sell. It reached the point where he had to post a screen shot of the PM sale and time stamp.

 

Posting the in the thread is still a good thing Roy. It avoids some of the confusion and distrust of certain buyers.

[VintageComics]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

 

True.

 

Many forum members have a very strict interpretation of the rules when they apply them to others while demanding deference and leeway for themselves. It may just be human nature to be duplicitous in this way but it pervades dealings here with many sellers and buyers.

 

Empathy has fallen into entropy.

 

No point in continuing this. The only thing to do is learn from it, move on, and always seek to hold your trading partner to the exact same level of rule forgiveness you would want for yourself.

 

That's a tall order when many people place the whims of their own navel above all else.

 

And change the rules to avoid it.

 

This happens on a nearly regular basis with sellers posting 'normal rules'.

 

Posting 'normal rules' is or a seller's unusual rules is up for much interpretation than a set of drafted rules after a community discussion.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying and I personally would have (and have in the past) put much more effort into resolving disagreements or misunderstandings than some do but in the end, different rules = different results from different people.

 

 

 

 

[VintageComics]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

And you well know that the abundance of popularity doesn't therefore prove the worthiness of an action.

 

 

Agreed that popular isn't necessarily right, but I also think people are slowly realizing why it happened.

 

In the past it happened because people posted 'usual rules'.

 

It happened here because Mike wasn't used to the rule of having to post something in the thread and Dan wants what some consider an unusual extra step.

 

...and that is why the rules need a revamp IMO - to avoid confusion.

 

Not necessarily an "unusual extra step". We had a boardie sell an item via PM just the other day and he was tackled with "accusations" implying that his book didn't sell. It reached the point where he had to post a screen shot of the PM sale and time stamp.

 

I only said that some considered it an unusual step, and likely because not everyone sees things the same way.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

 

True.

 

Many forum members have a very strict interpretation of the rules when they apply them to others while demanding deference and leeway for themselves. It may just be human nature to be duplicitous in this way but it pervades dealings here with many sellers and buyers.

 

Empathy has fallen into entropy.

 

No point in continuing this. The only thing to do is learn from it, move on, and always seek to hold your trading partner to the exact same level of rule forgiveness you would want for yourself.

 

That's a tall order when many people place the whims of their own navel above all else.

 

And change the rules to avoid it.

 

This happens on a nearly regular basis with sellers posting 'normal rules'.

 

Posting 'normal rules' is or a seller's unusual rules is up for much interpretation than a set of drafted rules after a community discussion.

 

I understand exactly what you are saying and I personally would have (and have in the past) put much more effort into resolving disagreements or misunderstandings than some do but in the end, different rules = different results from different people.

 

 

 

 

I agree. Sellers use vague rules on a whim.

 

I was discussing a book via PM with a seller and he mentioned he had another deal going with a boardie. I quickly jumped over to the sales thread and took it at full price since I knew the other deal wasn't done. The seller refused to sell it to me because the other boardie had a bunch of books in their deal. I figured his thread was following the rules of take it in thread trumps PMs. It turned out he had literally no rules!

 

I was fairly new and got ridiculed for it. I can tell you the seller had the book back up for sale 2 months later. At this point, I don't even click in their sales threads and they sell A LOT of Spidey books.

[HighRadArt]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

[kav]

I always put in my ebay listings my rules trump all ebay's rules

[the blob]

I used to have a PM route to buying at full ask as there is a sub-group of buyers who do not want others to know what they're paying for stuff or what they're buying. Makes sense particularly if they are going to press and slab and maybe don't want to mention that or just don't want people to be able to see they paid $10 for something they now want $200 for. I understand privacy desires. But it got too frigging complicated so lately I have had a take it in the thread trumps all and folks are free to make offers via PM. works better.

 

The exception will probably be "adult" comics I'll let people buy outright via PM. Very little of what I sell, but occasionally I do.

[Bio-Rupp]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here.

 

Some of us welcome your input and hope you continue to contribute

[RockMyAmadeus]

Because we are used to that sort of information, it's confusing as to why he didn't but I do believe technically, those rules were spelled out in the first post.

 

I too would have sold the book to Mike, but I understand why Dan didn't.

 

And that is why we are here.

 

 

If Tranny didn't understand that he HAD to post take it in the thread before the deal was final, then Dan didn't make it clear in his direct discussion with Tranny.

 

"But it was right there, in his first post!"

 

Yes, but that doesn't *really* matter in direct negotiations. It is incumbent upon the seller to make sure the buyer understands any and all terms, or the deal isn't final.

 

Tranny thought it was final, and was led to believe it was final by Dan.

 

OK. So we just disagree on who's responsability it was to make sure the buyer understood the terms of the sale. I think it being posted in the thread was all the notification he needed, but you think because the negotiations were via PM (and not in the thread) that they should have been restated.

 

 

 

 

On eBay, who is responsible for the listing's terms? The buyer, or the seller?

 

 

The term was central to the sale, as we have discovered. Dan should not, in any way, have accepted (by virtue of making the counter), that offer and not made it clear that the deal was not final until such-and-such action was also completed.

 

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

On eBay it's the buyers responsibility to understand the terms of the deal. It's the sellers responsibly to list them (once).

 

Tranny understood the terms of the deal which had been finalized upon his acceptance of the counter. There was clearly a meeting of the minds, here.

 

Dan: "I'll take this price."

 

Tranny: "Accepted."

 

Done.

 

If I negotiate a deal via PM on ebay, and accept someone's offer, again, through PM. And then someone hits the BuyItNow before they can do what needs to be done to complete that deal (on ebay it would be making the agreed upon offer through the listing, in our case it would be posting 'take it' in the thread per the rules) who should the buyer send the book to?

 

eBay says the buyer who popped BuyItNow and I would agree with them.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. Here's why: if I had a BIN on eBay, and someone contacted me through messages, and I agreed to their offer, and I reset the BIN to their offer, and they hit the BIN...but then someone else came along "first", and hit the BIN at the original price before the other person hit the BIN (even though they actually DID hit the BIN), who gets it...?

 

 

It's impossible. It cannot happen, without time travel being involved. The analogy simply doesn't work.

 

On eBay, it is understood that the inviolable rule is "whoever hits the BIN first, gets it." If this had been on eBay, Tranny would have understood that he would have had to go actually HIT the BIN before considering the deal final.

 

That wasn't the case, here. Once Tranny accepted Dan's counter, he EFFECTIVELY hit the BIN. The deal was done.

 

 

[Sqeggs]

Who here finalizes a deal without making sure everyone is on the exact same page?

 

A very large number of forum members.

 

And you well know that the abundance of popularity doesn't therefore prove the worthiness of an action.

 

 

Agreed that popular isn't necessarily right, but I also think people are slowly realizing why it happened.

 

In the past it happened because people posted 'usual rules'.

 

It happened here because Mike wasn't used to the rule of having to post something in the thread and Dan wants what some consider an unusual extra step.

 

...and that is why the rules need a revamp IMO - to avoid confusion.

 

Wasn't there some talk of writing up a set of "usual rules"? Did the effort fizzle out?

[Bomber-Bob]

Where were you guys when this happened ? After a Pending sale, an

if deals falls through is ignored and the seller posts this...

Still up for grabs. From this point forward first wins over any ongoing negotiations. Price reduced to $525

After this was allowed without much protest, anything goes. Link......

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=7866814&fpart=1

[Bio-Rupp]

I personally would vote for the following...

 

A in the sales thread beats any and all PM's regardless of timestamp.

 

If you want a deal... or any stipulations that you have with the seller that needs to be addressed via PM, you run the risk of losing the item to someone who obviously wants it more than you.

[HighRadArt]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

Wow, you put me on ignore? It was an observation and usually most of my posts are just ignored so I'm surprised (although, it's unfortunate thats what it took to get one). In general, people don't respond well to being told they're making assumptions, or the rules are clear when they actually feel otherwise. And to think I actually tried to apologize by sending you a pm (what was I thinking). This just reminds me of why I should stay out of these kind of debates. Oh well, to each their own.

 

Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's here.

 

Some of us welcome your input and hope you continue to contribute

 

Thanks (thumbs u

[Iceman399]

I personally would vote for the following...

 

A in the sales thread beats any and all PM's regardless of timestamp.

 

If you want a deal... or any stipulations that you have with the seller that needs to be addressed via PM, you run the risk of losing the item to someone who obviously wants it more than you.

 

So Now I cant buy a present for someone Without them seeing...