Proposed New Rule for Sales Forum 3 3

[wombat]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:07 PM, KPR Comics said:

There is.   I stand by my earlier post.  If you're going to have a rule about goods in hand, you should have a rule about funds in hand.  But frankly, both rules are tits on a bull.  

 

 

I don't believe that is a full list of items things that might qualify someone for the PL. More rules on how the PL list works. 

[lizards2]

On 12/20/2021 at 6:35 AM, alexgross.com said:

On 12/19/2021 at 7:56 PM, Beige said:

I can see the reasoning.

 

As for new rules - I'd like to see a 6 month timeframe from joining before you can sell books. No post count level, as that will just result in spamming.

 

It does seem to be the 'just got here' crowd who are causing the main problems (not that there are too many, as the board looks after its own) - just a thought.

 

Expand  

i agree with this wholeheartedly. most of the alleged spammers i've seen just got here and want to sell a bunch of expensive stuff. 

As long as the probationary period is accompanied with hazing and initiatory rituals, I am all in!   

I need to sharpen my pledge paddle...., 

[wombat]

Perhaps a question for @crassus Can a seller stipulate how fast they get paid and if a buyer does not follow those stipulations is that something that can be brought up as PL worthy? 

Edited December 20, 2021 by wombat

[rjpb]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:10 AM, CGC Mike said:

Yes.  

Thanks!

[rjpb]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:21 AM, KPR Comics said:

Shall we also have a rule that a buyer must have immediately available funds in hand?  Makes about as much sense.

Is this really a problem?  In my experience buyers typically ask if they can wait to pay before they commit to purchase, even though I say in my sales threads I'm okay with waiting up to two weeks for funds. 

[crassus]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:14 PM, wombat said:

Perhaps a question for @crassus Can a seller stipulate how fast they get paid and if a buyer does not follow those stipulations is that something that can be brought up as PL worthy? 

My understanding is that  no PL action can be taken in the first 30 days unless one or the other party flatly refuses to follow through, otherwise that 30 days is there potentially for the benefit of either party. From what I remember seller's adopt that stipulation for  payment as a way to free themselves  from the 30 day requirement in cases of nonpayment....for example, some sellers state "payment within 3 days of purchase or I reserve the right to relist the item" etc, so its more to free the seller than punish the buyer per se. You had it right I think above when you assumed that if a seller really wanted the sale they would wait and probably get paid before 30 days anyway. Practically I don't recollect that it ever comes up as an issue, since sellers with tight payment windows are looking to avoid ever having to go to the PL- ie. just relist and move on.

[Roger66]

On 12/20/2021 at 11:21 AM, KPR Comics said:

Shall we also have a rule that a buyer must have immediately available funds in hand?  Makes about as much sense.

Common-sense dictate that any potential buyer esp. on a big ticketed item must be prepared to pay within say 24 to 48 hour max upon receipt of your invoice. Personally when I list something expensive (say over 2k) I will indicate unless agreed upon before hand any 'take' requires payment in full within 24 hours of invoice-receipt .  Years ago I had a particular thorny problem with a particular Boardie, who despite our 'friendship' and agreed-upon payment terms required renegotiations or extensions over & over - all while he continued to buy from others here on a weekly basis. It was aggravating if not insulting.  The lesson I learned is just be very clear if not firm from the get-go and don't let "friends" with insatiable comic appetites take advantage of your generosity. 

Edited December 20, 2021 by Roger66

[wombat]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:25 PM, crassus said:

My understanding is that  no PL action can be taken in the first 30 days unless one or the other party flatly refuses to follow through, otherwise that 30 days is there potentially for the benefit of either party. From what I remember seller's adopt that stipulation for  payment as a way to free themselves  from the 30 day requirement in cases of nonpayment....for example, some sellers state "payment within 3 days of purchase or I reserve the right to relist the item" etc, so its more to free the seller than punish the buyer per se. You had it right I think above when you assumed that if a seller really wanted the sale they would wait and probably get paid before 30 days anyway. Practically I don't recollect that it ever comes up as an issue, since sellers with tight payment windows are looking to avoid ever having to go to the PL- ie. just relist and move on.

Interesting. And also why the I think the PL "rules" are not meant to define all situations. The 30 day "rule" is clearly stated. No where does it state the above as a legitimate way for a seller to cancel a sale prior to the 30 day period. But I think there would be zero support for a buyer to nominate a seller for cancelling a sale prior to 30 days when they have stipulated faster payment terms. 

[crassus]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:32 PM, wombat said:

Interesting. And also why the I think the PL "rules" are not meant to define all situations. The 30 day "rule" is clearly stated. No where does it state the above as a legitimate way for a seller to cancel a sale prior to the 30 day period. But I think there would be zero support for a buyer to nominate a seller for cancelling a sale prior to 30 days when they have stipulated faster payment terms. 

Yes exactly, the PL is there to create a framework for dispute resolution, its proper object is not the terms of sale but the completion of transactions. While the Marketplace rules do create a framework for sales they are few and leave plenty of room for sellers to lay down their own terms of sale, and sellers are mainly free to make up the rules they want, provided they don't directly contradict the Boards rules, and again, those are few...sellers have a lot of freedom to protect themselves by simply being clear about their expectations. 

[Kramerica]

On 12/19/2021 at 6:05 PM, alexgross.com said:

pretty sure the reason this is coming up now is not dealers with long histories here who list books before they have them back from cgc. that's annoying but hardly a major problem.

it's  new boardies trying to sell books here without any kudos or much in the way of references also not disclosing that the books he/she/they/zhesyay is selling are not even in their posession, suggesting that they might be a scammer. as someone else here already said, buyer beware. if the seller does not have a history here or good references, then i do not buy from them.

i think a seller should have to disclose if it's a consignment. but there should not be a ban on consignments. 

I like this. The "common sense" approach, one in which we have operated for 20 years or so. However, I believe that we could put some a ton of stuff in writing. I propose that we treat each case on a case by case basis as presented to the (see below) Governing Board of the CGC Forum of Sale. And I'd like every opportunity to add a "sub-amendment" to anything that we are able to agree upon.

Now, If you come across a weasel engaged in weaselly ways you do have a responsibility to call out said weasel! No turning a blind eye OR suggesting that someone is doing it. If it's happening everyone has a right to know. You may NOT get "all up in arms" and but decline to point the finger. Call out the guilty! Call them out even if you are unsure if they are 100% guilty. In all cases someone should out the culprit and we'll decide if they are a "reputable dealer" or "weasel." We'll then move on to the "Penalty Phase" or issue a "Right to sell stuff you don't have yet" on the boards. These decisions will be made by a group of 12 Boardies and we should vote to see whom will be a member of this Sales Forum Governing Body. You may NOT opt out of this duty should you be elected - it is your responsibility to serve the people. By documenting these new rules and then implementing them there is great potential for the wasting of time of everyone who visits these boards. And you may not "lurk." If you suspect anyone of "just lurking" on these Boards you should call them out! 

[MattTheDuck]

On 12/20/2021 at 10:02 AM, wombat said:

Probably not. And by the time it came up the payment would most likely already have been made. But consider a longer time period and I think that might get more support. 

Probably right.  I have generally found sellers pretty flexible when asked about various payment terms.  In this era of instant communications, however, it wouldn't surprise me to have a PL complaint lodged as the 72nd hour for payment elapsed.

 

[Kramerica]

On 12/20/2021 at 8:31 AM, crassus said:

Actually, I make these  points to suggest  that no new  rule  is really necessary. Seller's doing consignment without disclosure are taking far greater risks than potential  buyers. IMO existing rules and  recent PL  precedents  suggest  strongly that buyers are protected and seller's doing consignment  would not escape accountability. 

This 

[Joshua33]

I kinda agree with both sides. Do we need a another rule? Probably not. Would I buy a book from another boardie that wasn't in hand. Probably not. I guess if you don't like that it's not in hand, don't buy from the seller. Books that aren't in hand should be required to be noted as such, if they're being sold.

[speedcake]

I would be fine with a requirement that sellers must clearly disclose whether or not they have the books in their possession.

that way the buyer can decide. 
 

plenty of reputable boardies sell comics here on behalf of others now and then.

[GACollectibles]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:06 PM, rjpb said:

So then TJ bibles are okay in the future, as long as the covers aren't explicit or naughty bits covered?

That's what the NSFW/spoiler option is for!

NSFW

Spoiler

 

[djpinkpanther67]

Some of the more established members I would trust doing this.
I have sold books on the Boards for a few of my friends without having them in my possession. Many have been high dollar.

Haven’t had any problems yet.

[Red84]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:43 PM, speedcake said:

I would be fine with a requirement that sellers must clearly disclose whether or not they have the books in their possession.

that way the buyer can decide. 

It is the disclosure that I care about. Then the buyers can decide if they want to proceed.

[miraclemet]

On 12/19/2021 at 6:32 PM, topofthetotem said:

How about “buyer beware”.

Make your own judgements, read the fine print and understand what you’re getting into. 

Only problem is that sellers aren't required to disclose that they don't have the books in hand.

 

So maybe a "meet in the middle" version of the rule is that sellers must disclose any books that aren't "in hand" with estimated receipt dates?

[Ryan.]

How often is this happening? 

[MattTheDuck]

On 12/20/2021 at 1:40 PM, Ryan. said:

How often is this happening? 

Without disclosure, it may be difficult to determine.  I will say there don't seem to be a lot of instances where someone doesn't get (or there are significant delays in getting) books they've bought on the Boards.

As noted above, this thread is a direct reaction to very recent postings in the Sales threads that did NOT include disclosure until posters dragged it out of the OP.

Edited December 20, 2021 by MattTheDuck