Nominating DavidtheDavid 1 1

[comix4fun]

At this point each party believes the other mislead them or hid/caused damage to the book, so I don't see the resolution to this issue given their current stances. That fact, along with their actions up to this point, are the reasons I noted this is one of the more difficult to resolve issues I've seen here. There's no smoking gun that points without question to one party or the other being the "bad guy".

[Bomber-Bob]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

These are the two PMs I'm referring to...

He gives the option of keeping it or sending it back for a full refund, it's not conditional on seeing the book. The discussion of the damage is him responding to if it was there before, it's not a condition (the way it's worded) on a refund. 

Yes, I quoted the same two PM's, we agree on that ! I agree the narrative does not clearly spell out a conditional refund, but considering the seller's state of mind and his intent, I believe he wanted to see the book to render a decision. 

[comix4fun]

Just now, Bomber-Bob said:

Yes, I quoted the same two PM's, we agree on that ! I agree the narrative does not clearly spell out a conditional refund, but considering the seller's state of mind and his intent, I believe he wanted to see the book to render a decision. 

Possible, but his words about putting it on the buyer to decide what he wants to do and that he'll have the money out immediately are pushing me the other way. "I can have the money sent to you once I receive the book back."  Just a little "....and I am satisfied with your version of events." and there'd be no question. 

[wombat]

If you give someone your return address and then state you will send the money when the book is in hand seems relatively clear to me. What was he going to do if he didn't agree at that point? Send it back?

[wombat]

10 hours ago, DavidTheDavid said:

This is why I steer clear of these threads. People start playing amateur detective and part-time psychoanalyst, offering un-asked for advice based on little more than attempts to infer innuendo, hidden motives, likely causes, and whatever pabulum you want to inject. Advice, I've come to learn, is worth what you pay for it. Folks need to decide on the matter at hand and limit comments to that, which is the PL, which has apparently been decided. Some people have managed that. All the other --sorry, but yeah, it's , no matter how well-intentioned you think yourself--is just patronizing, presumptuous, and condescending. I don't like to engage in that kind of thing, so I no longer visit the probation forum or the moderation action. Some people are drawn to it like flies on poop. It's the same reason I largely avoid CG and the other sub-forums. Not only do you get to watch the drama, you get to insert yourself into it. Maybe we just need some live tweeting from all the sage commentators.

Eventually, these threads fall into a bunch of back-slapping and heehawing from parties who have no vested interest in the matter. Someone just needs to post a meme to complete the cycle. Then we'll start a new cycle with people criticizing my critique or offering more sage advice or furthering the misdirection. Yeah, the whole matter sucks, but in general so does the board's response.

And no, I didn't sleep well last night, and yes, I might be in a bad mood. But just as disappointing is the whole transaction and PL matter, so is it to watch things dissolve into the muck that has typified this board for so long.

 

 

It's a public board. This is a public nomination. Discussion ensues. That's the way it works. 

[Bomber-Bob]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Possible, but his words about putting it on the buyer to decide what he wants to do and that he'll have the money out immediately are pushing me the other way. "I can have the money sent to you once I receive the book back."  Just a little "....and I am satisfied with your version of events." and there'd be no question. 

The fact that this was a PM exchange and probably not much more thought out than a verbal exchange I don't think it should be analyzed as a legal document. I see...... 

- This book is damaged, it's not an 8.5, I want a rebate.

- I have to see it first. I would prefer to keep it rather than rebate.

 

 

[Bomber-Bob]

6 minutes ago, wombat said:

If you give someone your return address and then state you will send the money when the book is in hand seems relatively clear to me. What was he going to do if he didn't agree at that point? Send it back?

Taken out of context, I concur. But the seller said he wanted to see the book to inspect the damage so he has to give his return address. If only the seller had clearly said, upon inspection, I will refund you but he didn't. So everyone reads it differently. I am just trying to imagine myself in the seller's situation. The more he thinks about it he reaches the conclusion NO, this is not right, the book was not damaged. Additionally, he gets notified that the buyer has contacted Paypal. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. I know I am reading between the lines but I sympathize with the seller. Sorry.

[Paddy_McShillihan]

20 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

At this point each party believes the other mislead them or hid/caused damage to the book, so I don't see the resolution to this issue given their current stances. That fact, along with their actions up to this point, are the reasons I noted this is one of the more difficult to resolve issues I've seen here. There's no smoking gun that points without question to one party or the other being the "bad guy".

 

[comix4fun]

4 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

The fact that this was a PM exchange and probably not much more thought out than a verbal exchange I don't think it should be analyzed as a legal document. I see...... 

- This book is damaged, it's not an 8.5, I want a rebate.

- I have to see it first. I would prefer to keep it rather than rebate.

 

 

Parol Evidence assembled to divine the intentions of the parties when there isn't a formal written agreement. 

Electronic conversations, texts, emails, PMs (in this case) have been upheld as enforceable agreements including in a very influential case out of New York in 2013. So, no, this isn't the same as the spoken word. 

 

[ChiSoxFan]

6 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Taken out of context, I concur. But the seller said he wanted to see the book to inspect the damage so he has to give his return address. If only the seller had clearly said, upon inspection, I will refund you but he didn't. So everyone reads it differently. I am just trying to imagine myself in the seller's situation. The more he thinks about it he reaches the conclusion NO, this is not right, the book was not damaged. Additionally, he gets notified that the buyer has contacted Paypal. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. I know I am reading between the lines but I sympathize with the seller. Sorry.

FWIW, the buyer went ahead with the PayPal claim after the seller accused him of causing the damage to the book AND telling him "Feel free to start and AMEX or PayPal claim. I'm willing to dispute it."  For me, it is also worth noting that, earlier in this discussion, the seller claimed, after the buyer stated that the seller prompted the buyer to file the claim, that the statement was false, and the seller retracted that only after I pointed out that the PM chain showed that was a false statement.

Again, FWIW, I'm not saying the buyer or the seller aren't both justified at being angry with how the situation has played out.  I've already made my point much earlier that I don't think there's anything along the lines of intentional deception that's happened here by either party, based on personal dealings and overall reputations, though mistakes have been made in many places, unintentional as they may have been, that have muddied the waters.  I'm only clarifying that this isn't simply a clear case of "Seller offers refund upon return of book and then buyer starts PayPal claim before that occurs".  There were accusations of malfeasance leveled at the buyer along with the above statement that changes that bolded perspective above, for me at least, slightly.

6 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

Parol Evidence assembled to divine the intentions of the parties when there isn't a formal written agreement. 

Electronic conversations, texts, emails, PMs (in this case) have been upheld as enforceable agreements including in a very influential case out of New York in 2013. So, no, this isn't the same as the spoken word. 

 

Either in the PM chain, or in this discussion as well, it's mentioned by the buyer that the seller had edited his PM's at some point during the discussion (I do not believe the seller has claimed the same, though if incorrect, someone can point that out).  Whenever I've edited a PM for any reason, it doesn't show it as being edited (I think it was that way on the old boards as well).  The buyer mentions that he has email copies of the unedited PM's (which is an option available to users on the boards).  Any differences between original and edited PM's we can see here might also have some bearing on the matter at hand, or they may be inconsequential -- without a comparison of them, it's impossible to know, but while we can analyze the PM's posted here to some degree, it does bear mentioning that they may not hold the entirety of the conversation.

[Bomber-Bob]

1 minute ago, comix4fun said:

Parol Evidence assembled to divine the intentions of the parties when there isn't a formal written agreement. 

Electronic conversations, texts, emails, PMs (in this case) have been upheld as enforceable agreements including in a very influential case out of New York in 2013. So, no, this isn't the same as the spoken word. 

 

Okay, so from the content of the PM's you are saying the Seller has accepted a return with promise of refund. Correct me if I am wrong but when I dispute a charge on my Credit Card, they issue a refund until the evidence is reviewed, at which point they may retract the refund. Cannot the same logic be applied here ?  

[ChiSoxFan]

50 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

At this point each party believes the other mislead them or hid/caused damage to the book, so I don't see the resolution to this issue given their current stances. That fact, along with their actions up to this point, are the reasons I noted this is one of the more difficult to resolve issues I've seen here. There's no smoking gun that points without question to one party or the other being the "bad guy".

You've been here a lot longer than me, but I agree with you wholeheartedly.  Most PL nominations tend to be very cut and dried, with pretty clear evidence, even if it's circumstantial, that one party is clearly at fault (and often, willingly trying to pull something).  Having followed PL discussions over time, I can't think of a more contentious disagreement among two people with long, clean track records than what we have here.

(Though, if I had initiated a PL nomination I could have gone through with a while back, my bolded statement might have been given a run for the money. 

Edited June 28, 2017 by ChiSoxFan

[Bomber-Bob]

BTW, I've noticed the Seller has stopped posting here lately ? I don't think there is any doubt neither party should be on the PL. Just interesting to discuss and possibly learn from these events for future reference.

[Hudson]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 0:15 PM, skypinkblu said:

I've dealt with and have always liked each of you. This whole episode makes me sad. Randall is correct, there is no way to determine who was right.

Anyone can make a mistake, either of you could have missed something. I've done that, all of us have done that, because no one is perfect. I once creased the back of an old book while putting it in the bag and board. I never noticed it. The buyer told me and refused my offer of a refund. We still talk all the time. Stuff happens.

I'm going to make a suggestion.

Send the book to CGC and have it slabbed, and sell it. Split the difference after the sale. Who knows, the book could even go for the same amount? If  you want to have it pressed, have it done at CGC. I am not saying they would be my top choice, but it's in one place and less likely to get lost somewhere traveling, or have more damage.

Sell it somewhere neutral like Comiclink at an auction.

Then just walk away and think how lucky you were that this was a comic accident and not a car accident where someone was injured.

Neither of you belong on any kind of list, both nice guys who believe they are right. I can't imagine anything deliberate was done anywhere, chalk it up as a twist of fate and move on.

I like what Sha has to say here (and I don't just want to hit the like button).

Her words have wisdom in them and although selling the book and splitting any loss may not make either of you truly happy, perhaps it is the fairest solution when no one can say with 100% certainty when the damaged occurred.

The sad part is that IMO a man's (or woman's) reputation is worth more than money.  Here are two well respected board members going at each other's reputations.   Personally, I would rather be out money (that is a cheap commodity which is easily made and easily lost) than to have anyone question my integrity (either as a buyer or as a seller).

[comix4fun]

21 minutes ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Okay, so from the content of the PM's you are saying the Seller has accepted a return with promise of refund. Correct me if I am wrong but when I dispute a charge on my Credit Card, they issue a refund until the evidence is reviewed, at which point they may retract the refund. Cannot the same logic be applied here ?  

Yes and no. It's mostly like that but not entirely.  When you dispute a charge on your CC it's because the merchant isn't voluntarily refunding the charge and you need the CC company to step in and compel the action. 
Here, the seller agreed to the refund initially, then denied it, then told the buyer to create a PP dispute. So the end result is the same, a seller having to be compelled to refund the money. 

However, if PayPal doesn't allow the refund it may prevent or delay the actual funds from changing hands but it will do nothing within the bounds of how the boards sales threads are administrated vis a vis the forum trading issues raised in this area. Simply put, if PayPal denies the refund there's no difference, for Probationary List discussions, between PayPal denying the refund and the seller denying the refund (not that the decision here would necessarily go one way for the other. 

 

 

[comix4fun]

13 minutes ago, Hudson said:

I like what Sha has to say here (and I don't just want to hit the like button).

Her words have wisdom in them and although selling the book and splitting any loss may not make either of you truly happy, perhaps it is the fairest solution when no one can say with 100% certainty when the damaged occurred.

The sad part is that IMO a man's (or woman's) reputation is worth more than money.  Here are two well respected board members going at each other's reputations.   Personally, I would rather be out money (that is a cheap commodity which is easily made and easily lost) than to have anyone question my integrity (either as a buyer or as a seller).

I totally agree. I completely missed Sharon's post. It's succinct and lays out what we're looking at very clearly. 

[Mxwll Smrt]

OK guys (no disrespect to Sharon).

Here's the comment to DavidtheDavid in its entirety that everyone seems to miss and it was in response to DavidtheDavid's suggestions:
I think the world of Mike - great guy - but there's always the distinct possibility that something can go wrong - and I'd like to limit any risk. Additionally, I'd need to see the book up close again to respond to the damage you've mentioned because I clearly missed it beforehand. Now, I understand that you wish to keep the book and yes, I'm in a pinch. but maybe its best that I simply buy the book back from you. I'm not interested in the downside if the book becomes more damaged. Sorry, but I think this is best. Let me know what you wish to do - I can have the money sent back to you on Monday (the bold and underline are for emphasis and do not appear that way n the original note). 

Nowhere do I ever state for a full refund or post an amount.

My next comment was:

"I meant I can have the money sent to you once I receive the book back. This is very upsetting because that book was beautiful - structurally it was way above a VF+ so I'm not pleased with what you've written. Please pack it safely and return the book."

So I wrote...best that I buy the book back from you....

....and the book is now damaged....

DavidtheDavid was the one who threw it in the mail right away and I didn't offer anywhere a full refund - I said I'd buy it back....and again for amplification, its not a VF+ book since being in his possession.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mxwll Smrt

[Mxwll Smrt]

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

These are the two PMs I'm referring to...

He gives the option of keeping it or sending it back for a full refund, it's not conditional on seeing the book. The discussion of the damage is him responding to if it was there before, it's not a condition (the way it's worded) on a refund. 

NO, I say I need to see the book up close again and I'll buy the book back - and nowhere do I offer a full refund.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Mxwll Smrt

[Bomber-Bob]

38 minutes ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

NO, I say I need to see the book up close again and I'll buy the book back - and nowhere do I offer a full refund.

Interesting, I think we all missed this fact. The seller did not offer a refund, he offered to buy the book back, not necessarily at the original purchase price.   

[Mxwll Smrt]

1 minute ago, Bomber-Bob said:

Interesting, I think we all missed this fact. The seller did not offer a refund, he offered to buy the book back, not necessarily at the original purchase price.   

David is the one who missed my statement(s) and he is also the one who first used the term "refund" after the book was shipped. The money I offered was for a buy back and I stated needed to see the book again - and for a damaged book that drops from a VF+ to maybe a F/VF there's a real price drop. He's the one who assumed and twisted my words - he was the one that threw it in the mail and then stated "we need to proceed with a refund" when one was never offered.

My comment which came much later and after tearing into the buyer  was only used because I got twisted up (and after vehemently saying "NO"  several different ways).

Sorry to some of the guys here but missing the dialogue - this buyer is great at getting everyone twisted up.