• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean
29 29

35,148 posts in this topic

4 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Now we know the likely reason why the book "went missing" since GPA is $700.

He set the terms and you paid within the time period.

Whether you believe him or not, you could nominate him for PL.

He could make you whole by providing you with the difference between what you paid and the gpa average of $700.

He could offer you something for free as a courtesy and apology.

There's lots of things that could be done to make it right. Saying my bad, here's your money back, is not enough. 2c

DISCLAIMER - this is of course based on only one side's retelling of the situation and without seeing the PM's.

I don't think this is typically a PL issue.  The buyer has been made whole (ie gotten their money back).  Not the great way to get repeat customers on the boards but I don't see PL in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 1Cool said:

I don't think this is typically a PL issue.  The buyer has been made whole (ie gotten their money back).  Not the great way to get repeat customers on the boards but I don't see PL in this case.

That's not accurate.

It is a PL issue if someone refuses or is unable to complete the transaction. Returning the money does not alleviate the seller of the responsibility to complete the sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Columbia Comics said:

So here is a new one I ran into today. Curious for the groups opinion. 

On 6/1 at 10:14 pm, a book was posted FS in the G/S/B section.   

On 6/2 at 7:18 am, I claimed said book.  Around 10:30 am, seller posted that the book was sold.  

I received a PM invoice around 11:30 am asking for the book price + shipping.

Fast forward to 11:55 pm, I paid via PayPal for the book. In the sellers rules, he granted up to 3 days to pay, so I’m well within my limit. 

On 6/3 at 2:02 am, I received a refund from PayPal (and a PM from the seller) that the book could no longer be located and therefore, a refund was the only option left.  

I’m a bit confused how a book can be listed for sale at 10 pm (with multiple photos), sold 10 hours later, confirmed by the seller, invoiced by the seller and then once payment is received, the “book goes missing?”

discuss....

I know it was late at night but I am shocked that book would sit up for sale for 9 hours and not get sold sooner at that price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Red84 said:

That's not accurate.

It is a PL issue if someone refuses or is unable to complete the transaction. Returning the money does not alleviate the seller of the responsibility to complete the sale.

I disagree.  I agree with the notion that once the buyer is made whole by a refund that is the end

 That doesn’t mean that it was OK but I don’t think it’s a probation list offense at that point  as both parties are whole

Edited by Bird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Red84 said:

That's not accurate.

It is a PL issue if someone refuses or is unable to complete the transaction. Returning the money does not alleviate the seller of the responsibility to complete the sale.

Tricky situation that usually doesn't go to the PL list in my opinion.  Can you point to another PL member who refunded a purchase due to book going missing (innocent until proven guilty).  If he ghosted the buyer or didn't refund the money then PL list definitely but I've not heard of anyone being required to give more then the purchase price back or go buy another book to fill the order.  Is there a precedence? 

Edited by 1Cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

Tricky situation that usually doesn't usually go to the PL list in my opinion.  Can you point to another PL member who refunded a purchase due to book going missing (innocent until proven guilty).  If he ghosted the buyer or didn't refund the money then PL list definitely but I've not heard of anyone being required to give more then the purchase price back or go buy another book to fill the order.  Is there a precedence? 

Here's the relevant PL Rules:

1) The 30-Day Rule

a) If a transaction between board members is not completed within 30 days, the offended party may submit the offender's name for inclusion to the HOS/Probation List (hereafter called the PL)

c) The 30-day rule is suspended if the accused refuses to complete the transaction or if the transaction cannot be completed due to, for example, the item being sold to someone else.

2) Notification on the Probation Discussion Thread

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

e) If completing the transaction is no longer possible, the accuser may outline a proposed path to resolution.

4) Removal From The PL

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

5) Probation List versus Hall Of Shame

a) The Probation List is for transactions that have not been fulfilled as promised.

-------------------------------------------

The rules provide for handling a situation where the transaction cannot be completed (as here if it is believed that the seller lost the book)

Merely refunding the money is not sufficient. That would enable any seller with seller's remorse to wait 29 days and then refund the buyer's money.

Here the transaction is not being fulfilled as promised.

Here's the 30 day rule is suspended because the seller is refusing to complete the transaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bird said:

I disagree.  I agree with the notion that once the buyer is made whole by a refund that is the end

 That doesn’t mean that it was OK but I don’t think it’s a probation list offense at that point  as both parties are whole

Both parties are not whole.

The buyer is deprived the benefit of the bargain, which is $200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Both parties are not whole.

The buyer is deprived the benefit of the bargain, which is $200.

I'm not saying there isn't merit in what you are saying and the rules can possibly apply to this situation.  But I've never heard of it being applied in the manner you are suggesting - seller owes buyer $200 to cover the deal they would have gotten.  I just don't see it being a PL shoe in if it came up for a vote.

Why use GPA in your calculations?  The cheapest copy I see available is $1,000 so why not make it $510 to cover the difference between what he was going to pay and the next available copy?

Edited by 1Cool
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Both parties are not whole.

The buyer is deprived the benefit of the bargain, which is $200.

Yeah I disagree that that’s relevant as GPA is an average not an absolute value

 I agree with 1Cool that I’ve never seen it applied this way

Edited by Bird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Both parties are not whole.

The buyer is deprived the benefit of the bargain, which is $200.

 This would be analogous to a seller complaining when a book is returned that the GPA has gone down and he now wants money to make himself whole 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 1Cool said:

I'm not saying there isn't merit in what you are saying and the rules can possibly apply to this situation.  But I've never heard of it being applied in the manner you are suggesting - seller owes buyer $200 to cover the deal they would have gotten.  I just don't see it being a PL shoe in if it came up for a vote.

Why use GPA in your calculations?  The cheapest copy I see available is $1,000 so why not make it $510 to cover the difference between what he was going to pay and the next available copy?

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red84 said:

d) If reasonable additional expenses are incurred the accuser may include them as part of the resolution. The validity of "reasonable additional expenses" may be subject to discussion.

Bit of a stretch.  What additional expenses did he incur? I can see the argument being he incurred loss of possible revenue but extra expenses is a big stretch.  I believe the rule was put in place to cover additional shipping cost or expenses which were incurred in getting their money back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@1Cool and @Bird

If providing a refund is the end of the transaction then a seller can sell a book, see if the value goes up, and then cancel and refund on day 29 without recourse for the buyer?

The PL is appropriate here if the buyer wishes to press the issue and if the buyer does not believe the seller.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A public flogging is in order but PL is a bit much. Should the book surface in the seller's possession it should go to the buyer if he wants it at the price he claimed it at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red84 said:

@1Cool and @Bird

If providing a refund is the end of the transaction then a seller can sell a book, see if the value goes up, and then cancel and refund on day 29 without recourse for the buyer?

The PL is appropriate here if the buyer wishes to press the issue and if the buyer does not believe the seller.

 

as to your first part, perhaps, yes. That is what individual lists are for. If a seller holds books for 29 days he could easily have the buyer cancel within that time frame as well should the value go down. Like I said, a public flogging may be in order especially if the book surfaces in the seller's position but that is all. And anyone who engages in holding a book 29 days and cancelling should be outed here of course, regardless of the reason. Community policing and the PL/HoS can both be effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Red84 said:

@1Cool and @Bird

If providing a refund is the end of the transaction then a seller can sell a book, see if the value goes up, and then cancel and refund on day 29 without recourse for the buyer?

The PL is appropriate here if the buyer wishes to press the issue and if the buyer does not believe the seller.

 

By the letter of the rule you could be correct but this is definitely a gray area that each specific sale would have to be looked at.  If a seller refused to ship a book for 29 days and then said the book is lost then you can bet a PL would be coming their way.  But if a seller notifies the buyer very quickly that a book is lost then it really should be let go unless the book pops up for sale elsewhere and it can be proved the seller backed out of the sale.  I'd be interested in seeing how the vote would go in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
29 29