General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[EC ed]

Understandably, this discussion has focused exclusively on the appropriateness of the seller's actions here. Let's set that aside for a moment...there's another issue this whole situation raises that is worthy of general discussion. Let me use myself as a hypothetical sales thread player and run a few scenarios by you, and ask you what you think of my actions (which is a question independent of what the seller may do):

 

Scenario 1: Seller lists a book for sale, then announces that the book is on hold. Then, I post an "I'll take it" in the thread (sounds familiar, right?)

 

Scenario 2: Seller lists a book for sale for $100. Boardie A posts an unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread. Before Seller declares Boardie A the "WINNAH", I come in and post something like "I'll take it, and I'll give you $120 for it." (I submit that this is not really all that fundamentally different from Scenario 1, in principle)

 

Scenario 3: Seller lists a book for sale for $100. Boardie A posts an unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread. Then, I post something like "I'll take it if that deal with Boardie A falls through." (i.e., I'm queueing up in the sales thread)

 

So, would everyone be comfortable with me, edowens71, doing these things, or would I be subject to some scrutiny, irrespective of what the seller chooses to do?

 

I've never been a fan of any form of "queueing up" in a sales thread. I've always thought it annoying, but this latest incident actually reveals another problem with it - it can actually influence the tenor of a deal with a boardie who was truly "first in line."

 

Let me stress that I don't think anyone involved in the Action incident had any ill intentions...that's not the point. I'm just saying that I hope that we aren't OK with any of my hypothetical actions up there becoming part of our community's accepted norms. Food for thought...

[passion4comics]

 

I see the seller as giving the buyer a chance. You're in Canada? I only ship to the US but what are you suggesting? A 3rd party? No thanks. Seller removes himself from PM. The rest of the PM is irrelevant. I agree it shows the buyers desire to meet any conditions to buy the book but it's too late. Nervous seller, nervous buyer. Seller finds a less nervous buyer and is less nervous himself.

 

Lessons learned all around.

 

The problem is that the seller did not give a reasonable effort into this statement (which he made of his own volition).

 

Ill put a hold on it until we can agree on shipping/payment terms

 

Yes, he could have dropped the negotiation after the first PM exchange but he didn't. He could have dropped it after the 2nd PM exchange but he didn't.

 

He dropped the negotiation (which he had committed to) as soon as someone else stepped up. That's like a slap in the face.

 

Personally (and I'm not a lawyer so anyone involved with contract law can speak up although I think at least one lawyer chimed in) I think in a court of law you could actually show that the seller did not honour his stipulation to hold the book until they could try to find an agreement.

 

And I agree, it was a learning experience.

 

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

[Mxwll Smrt]

 

I see the seller as giving the buyer a chance. You're in Canada? I only ship to the US but what are you suggesting? A 3rd party? No thanks. Seller removes himself from PM. The rest of the PM is irrelevant. I agree it shows the buyers desire to meet any conditions to buy the book but it's too late. Nervous seller, nervous buyer. Seller finds a less nervous buyer and is less nervous himself.

 

Lessons learned all around.

 

The problem is that the seller did not give a reasonable effort into this statement (which he made of his own volition).

 

Ill put a hold on it until we can agree on shipping/payment terms

 

Yes, he could have dropped the negotiation after the first PM exchange but he didn't. He could have dropped it after the 2nd PM exchange but he didn't.

 

He dropped the negotiation (which he had committed to) as soon as someone else stepped up. That's like a slap in the face.

 

Personally (and I'm not a lawyer so anyone involved with contract law can speak up although I think at least one lawyer chimed in) I think in a court of law you could actually show that the seller did not honour his stipulation to hold the book until they could try to find an agreement.

 

And I agree, it was a learning experience.

 

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

\

 

How did you get hit with "Contractual Interference" or for the matter of "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations" when ebay separates its parties bids and keeps bidding anonymous?

[passion4comics]

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

\

 

How did you get hit with "Contractual Interference" or for the matter of "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations" when ebay separates its parties bids and keeps bidding anonymous?

 

Sure they do.... As I was served at my front door from someone claiming the had "very important paperwork for me". It was back in 2008.

[revat]

 

I see the seller as giving the buyer a chance. You're in Canada? I only ship to the US but what are you suggesting? A 3rd party? No thanks. Seller removes himself from PM. The rest of the PM is irrelevant. I agree it shows the buyers desire to meet any conditions to buy the book but it's too late. Nervous seller, nervous buyer. Seller finds a less nervous buyer and is less nervous himself.

 

Lessons learned all around.

 

The problem is that the seller did not give a reasonable effort into this statement (which he made of his own volition).

 

Ill put a hold on it until we can agree on shipping/payment terms

 

Yes, he could have dropped the negotiation after the first PM exchange but he didn't. He could have dropped it after the 2nd PM exchange but he didn't.

 

He dropped the negotiation (which he had committed to) as soon as someone else stepped up. That's like a slap in the face.

 

Personally (and I'm not a lawyer so anyone involved with contract law can speak up although I think at least one lawyer chimed in) I think in a court of law you could actually show that the seller did not honour his stipulation to hold the book until they could try to find an agreement.

 

And I agree, it was a learning experience.

 

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

\

 

How did you get hit with "Contractual Interference" or for the matter of "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations" when ebay separates its parties bids and keeps bidding anonymous?

 

I would almost think that EBAY would be at fault for providing the mechanism for this action.

[N/A]

The law removed itself from the right/wrong discussion a loooong time ago.

[Mxwll Smrt]

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

\

 

How did you get hit with "Contractual Interference" or for the matter of "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations" when ebay separates its parties bids and keeps bidding anonymous?

 

Sure they do.... As I was served at my front door from someone claiming the had "very important paperwork for me". It was back in 2008.

 

I wasn't clear - my bad - anyone can have a suit brought against them - sorry to hear that it happened to you.

 

What happened in that suit?

[passion4comics]

 

Contractual Interference. I was hit with a 750k suit for something similar way back. I took a second chance offer on EBay. The seller backed out of the original deal with the winner. I was hit with a suit naming myself and the seller as the defendants. In the end, the seller had to make both parties, including myself, whole. The basis of the suit was that I was aware of party 1 selling to party 2 and I interfered with the purchase by buying it from party 1.

 

The price of the original item was 26k and was a collectable also.

\

 

How did you get hit with "Contractual Interference" or for the matter of "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations" when ebay separates its parties bids and keeps bidding anonymous?

 

Sure they do.... As I was served at my front door from someone claiming the had "very important paperwork for me". It was back in 2008.

 

I wasn't clear - my bad - anyone can have a suit brought against them - sorry to hear that it happened to you.

 

What happened in that suit?

 

The buyer had more legal resources than the seller. They settled. I was out of it because when I got the second chance offer, I was not aware of any prior contract. It was not a year. More like 7 months of BS. All kidding aside, the buyer believed they were his to the degree of filing a complaint with the Feds for art theft. They contacted me and I told them what happened after going through my own lawyer. They wanted no part of it after that.

 

This just seemed so familiar it was creepy. I just realized it this morning while driving. In the end, the first wife took everything in the divorce anyway. ( I don't see a gun to head smiley face so assume I just put one here).

 

 

[N/A]

Understandably, this discussion has focused exclusively on the appropriateness of the seller's actions here. Let's set that aside for a moment...there's another issue this whole situation raises that is worthy of general discussion. Let me use myself as a hypothetical sales thread player and run a few scenarios by you, and ask you what you think of my actions (which is a question independent of what the seller may do):

 

Scenario 1: Seller lists a book for sale, then announces that the book is on hold. Then, I post an "I'll take it" in the thread (sounds familiar, right?)

 

Scenario 2: Seller lists a book for sale for $100. Boardie A posts an unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread. Before Seller declares Boardie A the "WINNAH", I come in and post something like "I'll take it, and I'll give you $120 for it." (I submit that this is not really all that fundamentally different from Scenario 1, in principle)

 

Scenario 3: Seller lists a book for sale for $100. Boardie A posts an unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread. Then, I post something like "I'll take it if that deal with Boardie A falls through." (i.e., I'm queueing up in the sales thread)

 

So, would everyone be comfortable with me, edowens71, doing these things, or would I be subject to some scrutiny, irrespective of what the seller chooses to do?

 

I've never been a fan of any form of "queueing up" in a sales thread. I've always thought it annoying, but this latest incident actually reveals another problem with it - it can actually influence the tenor of a deal with a boardie who was truly "first in line."

 

Let me stress that I don't think anyone involved in the Action incident had any ill intentions...that's not the point. I'm just saying that I hope that we aren't OK with any of my hypothetical actions up there becoming part of our community's accepted norms. Food for thought...

 

As a buyer I have no issue with any of those scenarios. As a seller I also do to have an issue although I would ignore it unless the original sale fell through.

[paradigmcomics]

Had it said"Phil's Parking Lot (btw someone needs to PM me the background on that)"

It's a fictitious place, (I believe in Florida originally)where boardies meet up, and get physical with each other. It started after a person or people got strikes for threats. Rather than state you want to kick someone's butt, it's safer to say lets meet at Phil's parking lot.

 

It's actually a real store. Two board members from the Broward/Ft. Lauderdale, Florida area got in a dispute, here on the boards. One threatened the other to meet him/her at the parking lot of Phil's Comics. After that exchange occurred on the board, the term "Phil's Parking Lot" or some derivative there of, became part board slang/lingo for fighting/disputes.

[jaybuck43]

Thanks (thumbs u Next time Im in Ft Lauderdale (my grandmother lives there) I'll have to check it out.

[HarveySwick]

In case you missed it.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Once the seller said "It's on Hold" ....it should have been on "Hold".

 

"On Hold" means all other discussions about the book cease until details are worked out. The book is off the market until a deal is finalized or until the parties agree that no deal is sealed.

 

Otherwise "On Hold" means nothing.

 

Agreed.

 

I have passed on several items because they were on hold. It means it's being held for someone else, provided they work out the details. If it falls through, and the hold is released, THEN it's available for others.

 

Otherwise...don't place it on hold.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Normal rules means ill take in in the thread wins.

 

There is no such thing as "normal rules", because there are no standard selling rules in place on this board from the moderators (outside of things like no Paypal Personal for merchandise.)

 

If you have specific rules, they need to be stated, upfront, every time....especially on a "5 FIGURE BOOK."

[RockMyAmadeus]

Im not sure what to say here other than I will not be shipping any book to Quadman78. We can argue the semantics of "HOLD" but I am not letting a book go in a transaction that I don't feel comfortable with. I would require a check or MO but that does not negate any risk on my part. Apparently going forward I will have to put a wall of legalese in my posts.

 

It is not "arguing semantics" when there's a very real transaction on the line.

 

If you have a check or MO, and you wait the appropriate time for clearance, where is the risk? You insure the book, you pack it well, you get all the bells and whistles, you get the buyer's acceptance of the bells and whistles in writing, and you're done. What is the buyer going to do, claim he never got the item and sue you? From another country? When you have all his accepted terms in writing?

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

I've cleaned up the PM's for claritys sake, because it seems that people aren't reading them in their current form:

 

In case this wasn't mentioned before:

 

It's tough trying to slog through the "one more bid, and I'll have to sell my car" verbiage in the posts...I doubt the...less particular...among us even bother.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

I have a hard time understanding how 'on hold' can mean anything else other than the book is on hold.

 

If something is on hold, it's unavailable, whether it's underwear on layaway or real estate. To me 'on hold' = temporarily unavailable.

 

The seller had no obligation to hold the book but he did and so those words are binding.

 

Or does someone disagree?

 

Whenever I am at a convention, inevitably most dealers have multiple stacks of books set aside because they are 'On Hold" for so and so. We all know so and so doesn't buy all the books, they are just setting them aside to prevent others from buying them. I would hate to see this same technique employed in a sales thread. In this specific case I think the seller should have stated the book is Sold, not On Hold. There is a difference.

 

You're talking about two very different things and you're bringing emotion into the discussion when it's clear cut that there was a written contract.

 

We're not privy to why books are being held at shows or on the forum. Some are held as committed purchases. Some are held because people want to flip through the books, etc.

 

Here are the rules as posted by the OP:

 

Normal rules apply

USA Shipping only

No Paypal on these

We can discuss payment/shipping/pickup options

I have done a few large deals here 5k-20k if you would like boardies names lmk and ill ask them to vouch for me.

 

In this case, based on the PM exchange posted, quadman78 was obviously fully committed to the purchase as he was willing to pay the full $10K. The only purpose of the hold was to

 

a) figure out how to get that money to the seller

b) how to get the book to the buyer.

 

He was willing to pay outside of Paypal

He was willing to have the book shipped to a US address.

 

You'll note that the seller even encouraged discussion on payment / shipping / pickup options.

 

Those negotiations were cut short unfairly IMO because both buyers were willing to fulfill those conditions. It just took a little longer with quadman78 - and based on the book being on hold, I'd have figured that quadman78 should have had a reasonable amount of time t speak his peace before being shut out.

 

And again, it's important to note that the seller was the one that instituted the hold based on negotiation and the seller didn't fully explain. If the seller removes the hold before negotiation is complete it's a cheesy move in any negotiation, whether it's real estate, comics or anything else.

 

Cheesy yes but well within his rights to do so. The seller pulled the plug immediately after the 3rd party suggestion. He did not like the terms. Negotiation over. Thanks for your interest.

 

The negotiations may have lasted longer if there was no other buyer waiting but the seller is not obligated to continue the discussion.

 

The PM could have easily been

 

from the buyer

 

No thanks, you're from Canada and I only ship to the US.

 

Seller removes himself from PM

 

It doesn't matter if the buyer was from the Congo. If he had a US address to ship to, he met the conditions of the sale prior to his PM. The buyer met the conditions of the sale. "trory" did not have the right to back out at that point. And he *certainly* should not have put it on hold.

 

If he wants to have that right, he needs to state it up front:

 

"I reserve the right to sell or not sell to whomever I choose, for whatever reason I choose" (which is what I do.)

 

That way, people know nothing is final until I say it is. If I think you smell...no book for you!

 

None of this lazy "normal rules apply" business.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Annnnnddd...as usual, I'm days late to the party.

 

[N/A]

Way too late.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Way too late.

 

Quiet, you!