General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean 29 29

[jsilverjanet]

I posted I'll Take it on both books, and simply put Per PM to confirm shipping charges and paypal information; however, I suppose my phone decided to not send the PM. I only later received a message from the seller saying they had never received a message, when I thought my message had sent successfully.

 

The problem is that it's not a 'Per PM' agreement until you get an affirmation from the seller, which you clearly did not have.

 

Why don't you buy the book that is still available?

 

If you are saying that you simply wanted to confirm shipping and Paypal information then that means you are still committed to the book, right?

 

I offered him the book at less than the original price and less than the current discounted price and he still did not want the book.

 

I wonder why that is? Did he say?

 

He wanted both books. He said the 11 was priced right and was adding the 12 just because the deal was so good on the 11

[Iceman399]

Hurmph I'mma pout in the corner.

[jsilverjanet]

Hurmph I'mma pout in the corner.

 

[MustEatBrains]

I posted I'll Take it on both books, and simply put Per PM to confirm shipping charges and paypal information; however, I suppose my phone decided to not send the PM. I only later received a message from the seller saying they had never received a message, when I thought my message had sent successfully.

 

The problem is that it's not a 'Per PM' agreement until you get an affirmation from the seller, which you clearly did not have.

 

Why don't you buy the book that is still available?

 

If you are saying that you simply wanted to confirm shipping and Paypal information then that means you are still committed to the book, right?

 

I offered him the book at less than the original price and less than the current discounted price and he still did not want the book.

 

I wonder why that is? Did he say?

 

He wanted both books. He said the 11 was priced right and was adding the 12 just because the deal was so good on the 11

 

Huh? That statement makes zero sense to me. The I'll take it on both was not a discounted packaged deal. It's up to you if you want to let him off the hook for this but it seems like a lame excuse. Sounds like it's sour grapes for a mistake the potential buyer made.

 

Not sure if it constitutes a hangable offense though.

 

 

 

 

[techtre2003]

I posted I'll Take it on both books, and simply put Per PM to confirm shipping charges and paypal information; however, I suppose my phone decided to not send the PM. I only later received a message from the seller saying they had never received a message, when I thought my message had sent successfully.

 

The problem is that it's not a 'Per PM' agreement until you get an affirmation from the seller, which you clearly did not have.

 

Why don't you buy the book that is still available?

 

If you are saying that you simply wanted to confirm shipping and Paypal information then that means you are still committed to the book, right?

 

I offered him the book at less than the original price and less than the current discounted price and he still did not want the book.

 

I wonder why that is? Did he say?

 

He wanted both books. He said the 11 was priced right and was adding the 12 just because the deal was so good on the 11

 

Huh? That statement makes zero sense to me. The I'll take it on both was not a discounted packaged deal. It's up to you if you want to let him off the hook for this but it seems like a lame excuse. Sounds like it's sour grapes for a mistake the potential buyer made.

 

Not sure if it constitutes a hangable offense though.

 

 

 

 

I think it makes sense. The buyer wanted both books. One he felt was priced high, one low, so in the end it evened out. I've done deals like that and I'm sure most others here have too. The buyer doesn't get the book he felt was priced low so he doesn't want to buy the book he felt was priced too high. Sure, it wasn't technically a package deal, but I would assume that's what the buyer had in mind. I don't think you can say the buyer doesn't get the one book because he made a mistake, but at the same time hold him responsible for buying the second book because of that same mistake. To me, it seems like a no harm, no foul situation and buyer and seller should just move on.

[HarveySwick]

Then don't throw out BEFORE you discuss with a seller unless you're serious about buying the books.

[Sqeggs]

love to see sellers say that they'll pay the paypal % like they're doing potential buyers a favor.

 

Sellers absorbing the paypal fee (since it comes off the balance transferred) is the status quo.

 

Making it sound like you are covering a buyer cost is somewhat misleading.

 

Doesn't PP bar sellers from charging a buyer a fee for using PP as payment? If so, then all the selling threads that require buyers to pay an extra 3% when using PP are in violation of PP's rules.

 

Seems as if the number of threads requiring buyers to cover the PP charge is increasing.

[MustEatBrains]

The guy threw out 2 I'll take its. It's irrelevant what the buyer thinks in his head about one being priced too high or low, and if I don't get one I'll just walk away from the other. They are 2 seperate and distinct in the sales thread.

 

There was never any conditional statement given to the seller tying the 2 transactions together.

 

IMO it's in bad form to not at least complete the one transaction where the book was still available.

 

 

 

 

[techtre2003]

The guy threw out 2 I'll take its. It's irrelevant what the buyer thinks in his head about one being priced too high or low, and if I don't get one I'll just walk away from the other. They are 2 seperate and distinct in the sales thread.

 

There was never any conditional statement given to the seller tying the 2 transactions together.

 

IMO it's in bad form to not at least complete the one transaction where the book was still available.

 

 

 

 

I think the buyer screwed up and the seller did the right thing by selling to the other buyer.

That being said, the seller sold to the other buyer because there was no deal in place since there was never a PM. To me, if there was no deal in place for the first book, there was also no deal in place for the second book.

 

I also think the seller was generous in offering the buyer a discount on the second book even though it was the buyer who screwed up the whole thing. I think the buyer should take the deal, but I don't necessarily think he is obligated.

[jsilverjanet]

I offered the remaining book significantly less than my asking price which he was willing to pay to make up the difference

 

 

I'm not holding him accountable so no PL.

 

 

[HarveySwick]

The guy threw out 2 I'll take its. It's irrelevant what the buyer thinks in his head about one being priced too high or low, and if I don't get one I'll just walk away from the other. They are 2 seperate and distinct in the sales thread.

 

There was never any conditional statement given to the seller tying the 2 transactions together.

 

IMO it's in bad form to not at least complete the one transaction where the book was still available.

 

 

 

 

I think the buyer screwed up and the seller did the right thing by selling to the other buyer.

That being said, the seller sold to the other buyer because there was no deal in place since there was never a PM. To me, if there was no deal in place for the first book, there was also no deal in place for the second book.

 

I also think the seller was generous in offering the buyer a discount on the second book even though it was the buyer who screwed up the whole thing. I think the buyer should take the deal, but I don't necessarily think he is obligated.

 

The "buyer" was just trying to argue that the "per PM" was to confirm shipping/PayPal info and he was really just taking the books outright. Only when he didn't get both books, did he decide he wanted none.

 

This should be a PL nomination but Hector is a great seller. People really need to stop making excuses for this type of behavior.

[Red84]

No PL here. His Take It per PM was not a valid Take. He's not bound to buy and Hector is not bound to sell. There was never a "meeting of the minds."

[HarveySwick]

I understand the technicalities of it.

 

The guy wrote " per PM". There was no PM. I get it.

 

But he tried to argue that the "per PM" was really just to get info about shipping/PayPal info and really it was an outright

 

When he was told he wasn't getting both books, only then did he say he didn't want any books. He took his ball and went home. The guy threw out an unconditional by his own admission and should buy the book. But this is a happy zone filled with rainbows and sprinkles so we'll let him off the hook.

[Chaseman210]

I think what others are saying is the buyer posted on both books. If it was a flat out like you're saying the buyer implied, then that means he posted on both books before they sold. If Hector went ahead and sold one of the books to the other buyer (which makes sense because there was no PM agreement), then you can't force the guy to buy the other book. You can't say the didn't count on the #11, but DID count on the #12. It was either an actual on BOTH books or it was void on both after the #11 sold to somebody else.

[Chaseman210]

I understand the technicalities of it.

 

The guy wrote " per PM". There was no PM. I get it.

 

But he tried to argue that the "per PM" was really just to get info about shipping/PayPal info and really it was an outright

 

When he was told he wasn't getting both books, only then did he say he didn't want any books. He took his ball and went home. The guy threw out an unconditional by his own admission and should buy the book. But this is a happy zone filled with rainbows and sprinkles so we'll let him off the hook.

 

So if the was unconditional, that was on BOTH books. So he should get both according to this argument.

[HarveySwick]

I give up. Carry on.

[IntoAnother]

I understand the technicalities of it.

 

The guy wrote " per PM". There was no PM. I get it.

 

But he tried to argue that the "per PM" was really just to get info about shipping/PayPal info and really it was an outright

 

When he was told he wasn't getting both books, only then did he say he didn't want any books. He took his ball and went home. The guy threw out an unconditional by his own admission and should buy the book. But this is a happy zone filled with rainbows and sprinkles so we'll let him off the hook.

 

I agree Swick, he should have went forward with the purchase of the remaining book. Yet if I was the seller I would no longer want to move forward with the transaction due to how the "buyer" began the transaction, one headache would be enough for me.

[MetalPSI]

I offered the remaining book significantly less than my asking price which he was willing to pay to make up the difference

 

 

I'm not holding him accountable so no PL.

 

 

Discussion over.

 

 

[Chaseman210]

But you have to at least see that point of view. If his counts on the #12, it also counts on the #11 because both were by the guy before anybody else posted . So if he beat everybody on the #12, that applies to the #11 as well.

 

 

[revat]

I think what others are saying is the buyer posted on both books. If it was a flat out like you're saying the buyer implied, then that means he posted on both books before they sold. If Hector went ahead and sold one of the books to the other buyer (which makes sense because there was no PM agreement), then you can't force the guy to buy the other book. You can't say the didn't count on the #11, but DID count on the #12. It was either an actual on BOTH books or it was void on both after the #11 sold to somebody else.

 

that's how I thought it was too, but I was too lazy to draw a flow chart to make sure.

 

"I will buy both of these books based on some secret terms that I made up"

 

"I don't know what you're talking about as we never discussed secret terms, but one of those books just sold to someone else."

 

"Then I guess we don't have a deal."

 

"Guess not"

 

"When do you think they'll put Season 3 of Hannibal on Amazon Prime?"

 

"I think you can watch it on Hulu Plus right now."

 

"We already have Amazon Prime and Netflix, doesn't make sense to pay for yet another streaming service. Besides I like to download the eps on Amazon Prime then watch them at the gym while I run"

 

"If you really want to watch it, just do the free Hulu Plus 1-month free trial then quit after that."

 

"Seems like a reasonable idea, if they still haven't posted it to Amazon Prime after the Game of Thrones season, I'll just get the free Hulu trial."