APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[Spider-Dan]

I want to make a public apology to Mike (Transplant) for the way my last sales thread unfolded

 

I always post " IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's"

 

I do this because I've lost out on books where the seller says "Sorry but it was sold via PM". Has it really been?? Who knows.

 

I'm of the belief that everyone have an open and honest chance at it. Can't get more honest than doing it publically.

 

If a buyer asks me to keep the sale private, I will respect their wishes and immediately post it "Sold via PM" I've done that many times in the past, and will continue to do so.

 

I didn't read Mike's PM saying he agreed to the deal prior to the 2 's being posted IN the thread. I try to be on the PC when I have books for sale, but with a wife and 3 kids, sometimes I get pulled away. This unfortunately was one of those times.

 

I think most people who have dealt with me would agree that I am an honest person, and not out to screw anyone over. I wish I had the ability to not care when certain people chime in and make accusations or call my character in question, but sadly for me, I don't.

 

I did make the comment that I would have pocketed more $ if Mike won the book, but I was WRONG. In the heat of the thread, my quick math was off.

 

I stand behind my decision that Joey won the book, but I apologize to Mike for not making the rules clearer and not getting back to him quick enough

[HarveySwick]

This thread is screaming "FRIDAY!"

[Thomas Nielsen]

Sellers remorse

[Logan510]

I don't care for the way he runs his sales, but it's not against the board rules

[Dr. Balls]

That's cool. Sadly, this thread will probably go into an ADHD, Ridalin-fueled Friday freak out - but for the record: I give Spider-Dan a (thumbs u for speaking out.

[Iceman399]

 

I didn't read Mike's PM saying he agreed to the deal prior to the 2 's being posted IN the thread.

[DrWatson]

I want to make a public apology to Mike (Transplant) for the way my last sales thread unfolded

 

I always post " IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's"

 

I do this because I've lost out on books where the seller says "Sorry but it was sold via PM". Has it really been?? Who knows.

 

I'm of the belief that everyone have an open and honest chance at it. Can't get more honest than doing it publically.

 

If a buyer asks me to keep the sale private, I will respect their wishes and immediately post it "Sold via PM" I've done that many times in the past, and will continue to do so.

 

I didn't read Mike's PM saying he agreed to the deal prior to the 2 's being posted IN the thread. I try to be on the PC when I have books for sale, but with a wife and 3 kids, sometimes I get pulled away. This unfortunately was one of those times.

 

I think most people who have dealt with me would agree that I am an honest person, and not out to screw anyone over. I wish I had the ability to not care when certain people chime in and make accusations or call my character in question, but sadly for me, I don't.

 

I did make the comment that I would have pocketed more $ if Mike won the book, but I was WRONG. In the heat of the thread, my quick math was off.

 

I stand behind my decision that Joey won the book, but I apologize to Mike for not making the rules clearer and not getting back to him quick enough

He can frame your apology and set it right next to his Daredevil #1... Oh, wait...

[1koko]

I want to make a public apology to Mike (Transplant) for the way my last sales thread unfolded

 

I always post " IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's"

 

I do this because I've lost out on books where the seller says "Sorry but it was sold via PM". Has it really been?? Who knows.

 

I'm of the belief that everyone have an open and honest chance at it. Can't get more honest than doing it publically.

 

If a buyer asks me to keep the sale private, I will respect their wishes and immediately post it "Sold via PM" I've done that many times in the past, and will continue to do so.

 

I didn't read Mike's PM saying he agreed to the deal prior to the 2 's being posted IN the thread. I try to be on the PC when I have books for sale, but with a wife and 3 kids, sometimes I get pulled away. This unfortunately was one of those times.

 

I think most people who have dealt with me would agree that I am an honest person, and not out to screw anyone over. I wish I had the ability to not care when certain people chime in and make accusations or call my character in question, but sadly for me, I don't.

 

I did make the comment that I would have pocketed more $ if Mike won the book, but I was WRONG. In the heat of the thread, my quick math was off.

 

I stand behind my decision that Joey won the book, but I apologize to Mike for not making the rules clearer and not getting back to him quick enough

 

Never apologize to Mike...........

 

kids these days...

[HighRadArt]

Good for you Dan but I don't see the need to apologize. You can't make everyone happy.

[blazingbob]

Just sell to me and no public apologies are necessary.

 

 

[vaillant]

From what I get, your rules were clear to begin with.

Nice to apologize, but it was clearly stated that it‘s the first IN the thread and not via PM.

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

[Speedy-D]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

[techvoodoo]

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

I already explained that: no, because Dan acted contrary to his own rules. If he meant what he said, he should have clearly told Transplant in the negotiation that, according to his own rules, the deal isn't complete until he posts the take it emoticon in the thread, prior to anyone else posting it.

 

By not mentioning that in the negotiations, and making Tranny an offer without re-stating his terms, Dan didn't follow his own rules. If it was that important, it should have been explicitly stated, in writing, during the negotiation in private.

 

Transplant clearly thought he had negotiated a done deal, only to have it pulled out from under him. There was clearly a "meeting of the minds", which is the heart of a valid contract.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

Speedy- Did you read the thread?

 

Let's say I offer a book at 7 for $90. You PM me offering $70 for it. I say how about $75. You post the take it in the PM at 7:30. I ignore you for 2 hours and then Joe Shmow comes alone and says he'll take it at 9 for the full price.

 

Does that seem right?

[Speedy-D]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

I already explained that: no, because Dan acted contrary to his own rules. If he meant what he said, he should have clearly told Transplant in the negotiation that, according to his own rules, the deal isn't complete until he posts the take it emoticon in the thread, prior to anyone else posting it.

 

By not mentioning that in the negotiations, and making Tranny an offer without re-stating his terms, Dan didn't follow his own rules. If it was that important, it should have been explicitly stated, in writing, during the negotiation in private.

 

Transplant clearly thought he had negotiated a done deal, only to have it pulled out from under him. There was clearly a "meeting of the minds", which is the heart of a valid contract.

But if he said it in his rules first post, where rules are always listed, why isn't that enough? He also talks about shipping costs and acceptable payment methods in his original post. Does he have to reiterate those as well via PM, to keep them applicable?

[Speedy-D]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

Speedy- Did you read the thread?

 

Let's say I offer a book at 7 for $90. You PM me offering $70 for it. I say how about $75. You post the take it in the PM at 7:30. I ignore you for 2 hours and then Joe Shmow comes alone and says he'll take it at 9 for the full price.

 

Does that seem right?

You mean the sales thread? Nope. I'm responding to what I see here.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

 

[ChrisInBaltimore]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

Speedy- Did you read the thread?

 

Let's say I offer a book at 7 for $90. You PM me offering $70 for it. I say how about $75. You post the take it in the PM at 7:30. I ignore you for 2 hours and then Joe Shmow comes alone and says he'll take it at 9 for the full price.

 

Does that seem right?

 

You mean the sales thread? Nope. I'm responding to what I see here.

 

It sounds like Transplant made an offer and Dan countered. Transplant took it and went out. Then the book sold in the sales thread at full price.

 

The simple fact that an apology thread was created seems to admit fault. I'm also surprised the second buyer didn't defer to Transplant.