• 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.

Nominating DavidtheDavid
1 1

Started by Mxwll Smrt,

318 posts in this topic

masterlogan2000

masterlogan2000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bababooey said:

Is either party interested in a path to arbitrate this?

The Current Scenario: parties are in disagreement, the book is with the original seller, both parties feel the book is worth less than the original $1500 value but both parties agreed it was worth $1500 recently.  The original seller has the book & the funds are in dispute with PayPal (in the original seller's account)

I propose that both the buyer and seller submit bids for the book to a third party board member via PM, the party with the higher bid gets the book and the arbitration figure or settlement is the lesser of:
a) the difference between his bid and the original price
b) the difference between his bid and the bid of the other party 

So whoever bids highest wins the book and the settlement is used to roll back the original purchase price to determine the new value of the book.
If the original buyer wins, he gets the book sent back (3rd party?) and the settlement amount comes off his original purchase price in the form of a voluntary refund from the seller.  New value of the book represents purchase price paid.
If the original seller wins, he keeps the book and the settlement amount is deducted from the original purchase price to determine the amount of the refund to the original buyer.  New value for the book is refunded to buy it back.

There's really no relevance when it comes to the "bid-gap" if that ends up determining the settlement amount other than the fact that both parties had a role in determining it.

 

In this scenario, what if the book is shipped back to @DavidTheDavid and we find that there is additional damage that we cannot determine the source? :insane:

Then we'll be back to square one!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
masterlogan2000

masterlogan2000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bababooey said:

Is either party interested in a path to arbitrate this?

The Current Scenario: parties are in disagreement, the book is with the original seller, both parties feel the book is worth less than the original $1500 value but both parties agreed it was worth $1500 recently.  The original seller has the book & the funds are in dispute with PayPal (in the original seller's account)

I propose that both the buyer and seller submit bids for the book to a third party board member via PM, the party with the higher bid gets the book and the arbitration figure or settlement is the lesser of:
a) the difference between his bid and the original price
b) the difference between his bid and the bid of the other party 

So whoever bids highest wins the book and the settlement is used to roll back the original purchase price to determine the new value of the book.
If the original buyer wins, he gets the book sent back (3rd party?) and the settlement amount comes off his original purchase price in the form of a voluntary refund from the seller.  New value of the book represents purchase price paid.
If the original seller wins, he keeps the book and the settlement amount is deducted from the original purchase price to determine the amount of the refund to the original buyer.  New value for the book is refunded to buy it back.

There's really no relevance when it comes to the "bid-gap" if that ends up determining the settlement amount other than the fact that both parties had a role in determining it.

 

Or what if @Mxwll Smrt wins the bid and waits a week to disclose additional damage to the book.  :insane:

Then we'd come full circle!!!

(Don't forget, he's had the book in his possession for a few days now at this point, so that would be a real possibility).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Red84 said:

Since we're going the credentials route, I am also a lawyer. lol.  Comix4Fun was not giving a legal analysis of the situation and neither am I.  Buyer missed the damage when he initially looked at the book and confirmed the condition.  I do not believe that would constitute a waiver to the point of absolving the seller of responsibility if the book did indeed arrive damaged.

 

You're still leaving out the part where the buyer, despite self-admitted misgivings, indicated to the seller, and to the general public, that the transaction had been concluded successfully, before reversing course a week later.

That the buyer missed the damage isn't the issue.

That the buyer told the seller that "everything's great here!" and THEN noticed the damage a week later, especially when admitting to seeing the potential problem initially, IS.

34 minutes ago, Red84 said:

What most things come down to is reasonableness and reasonableness is very subjective.

I don't think it's possible to overstate, using the English language, how desperately true this is.

Me, personally, I wouldn't at all consider it reasonable to publicly denigrate an entire class of people based on their philosophical beliefs regarding how they wish to be be led, for example...

It comes down, as always, to who is the most persuasive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

They no give me a check-y they no getta my service-y. lol

 

 

(insert non-adult, gender-non-determinate human person yelling something at the camera which, for politically correct reasons, I cannot describe in further detail.)

Besides, I'm not much of a fan of ceviche anyways, whether you make it or not.

 

41 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I believed it was only waiver as far as the damage was not hidden and freely and easily able to be discovered, had it existed upon opening the package, through routine examination as is common in the hobby. 

If it had been restoration, internal defect, or otherwise obfuscated and a defect only able to be discovered upon more in depth or detailed examination then it would be something more easily excusable on the buyer's part. 

Indeed. 

Something else this thread has been useful in illuminating: if you're going to go out of your way to denigrate people online, fairly or not, you best run an airtight ship yourself, no...? Karma isn't just a place to look up your credit.

:D

Edited by RockMyAmadeus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DavidTheDavid

DavidTheDavid

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Mxwll Smrt said:

Incorrect. He offered and coupled with his comment of the 17th it makes a position on the book. Please do not speak to his state of mind because no one can address that.

Okay, where's the irony trophy? You just took it home for a solid year with that comment. :applause:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomber-Bob

Bomber-Bob

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Red84 said:

Joey has already mentioned that a book can be damaged through SCS without any damage to the packing material.  This can occur if the book is able to move within the bag.  A lack of damage to the box does not eliminate the possibility of damage during shipping.

Yes but if there was impact inside the box, there should be evidence on the Backing Board. The backing board would also show a crease at the same location of the book. At this point, I don't know if the backing board has been examined. If the buyer had verified this when contacting the seller about the damage I think none of this discourse would have occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DavidTheDavid

DavidTheDavid

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Paddy_McShillihan said:

And for a $1500 book ..,, I don't get it 

Scanned back through my thread posts and the PM exchange. Where did I say I don't remember something? Not responding to Maxwell's baits and distortions is a far cry from being forgetful. He's mischaracterized so many statements at this point, that it's hard to know where to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red84

Red84

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RockMyAmadeus said:

Me, personally, I wouldn't at all consider it reasonable to publicly denigrate an entire class of people based on their philosophical beliefs regarding how they wish to be be led, for example...

Is this in reference to something I've said or someone else?  If it's based on something I've said then please let me know so I can double down.

Veiled attacks that don't allow for rebuttal are pretty cowardly, or as the kids say, weak sauce.  Just saying.

Edited by Red84
more words
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mxwll Smrt

Mxwll Smrt

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 minutes ago, DavidTheDavid said:

Scanned back through my thread posts and the PM exchange. Where did I say I don't remember something? Not responding to Maxwell's baits and distortions is a far cry from being forgetful. He's mischaracterized so many statements at this point, that it's hard to know where to start.

Let me help you...

Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 6.15.00 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SquareChaos

SquareChaos

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't understand why this is so complicated  (shrug)

Both of you should combine to take the monetary hit to make up the difference between the 7.5 and 8.5. Taking both of you at face value, that neither is attempting to con the other, then you're equally at fault for committing to something before you knew all of the facts. One of you committed by stating that the book arrived safe and sound and the other agreed to accept a return. It seems easiest to me to simply accept the fact that the cause of the damage to the book is likely completely unknowable .... but if you do accept that, then you can then get on with your lives and put this behind you.

Though I will say, for the life of me, I don't understand the strong insistence from @Mxwll Smrt that @DavidTheDavid is attempting to scam him... That just isn't among the simplest possible explanations out of the universe of possible explanations and I'm certain that, were I on the receiving end of it, it would greatly reduce my willingness to attempt to work it out in an equitable manner, so while I understand being upset, this thread is a bit ridiculous from that perspective. 

Edited by SquareChaos
Clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
revat

revat

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, SquareChaos said:

I don't understand why this is so complicated  (shrug)

Both of you should combine to take the monetary hit to make up the difference between the 7.5 and 8.5. Taking both of you at face value, that neither is attempting to con the other, then you're equally at fault for committing to something before you knew all of the facts. One of you committed that to the book being safe and sound upon arrival and the other agreed to accept a return. It seems easiest to me to simply accept the fact that it is completely unknowable what happened to the book and where the damage came from.... but if you do that, you can then get on with your lives and put this behind you.

Thought I will say, for the life of me, I don't understand the strong insistence from @Mxwll Smrt that @DavidTheDavid is attempting to scam him... That just isn't among the simplest possible explanation out of the possible universe of explanations and I'm certain that, were I on the receiving end of it, it would greatly reduce my willingness to attempt to work it out in an equitable manner, so while I understand being upset, this thread is a bit ridiculous from that perspective. 

seems reasonable.  There's not going to be a perfect solution, no epiphanies or more convincing arguments to be made by either party.  And I THINK that if either side pulled out to a more objective distance they would see that the other person's position could reasonably be in good faith, even if some avoidable mistakes were made on both sides.  Short of some arbitration hearing or other judiciary process, how one could come to mutually agreed upon judgment of fault.  Barring that, and given that both sides made mistakes and that both sides are 'legitimate' comic collectors and board members who probably wouldn't attempt to defraud and ruin their reputations in this instance, SC seems to be reasonable. 

I think that if this was a cheaper comic, it would have been resolved by now.  I'd say let it be a somewhat expensive lesson for both sides (assuming the price difference between $300-$500) and leave it at that.  Everybody made mistakes so everybody loses.  Though to be fair its not my book or money, and I'm not a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DavidTheDavid

DavidTheDavid

Posted
Posted

As stated already, Maxwell's admittedly disdainful tone, volatile posts, denigrating statements, condescension, and extraordinary display of illogic does not give me faith that I will find an amicable resolution, nor a reasonable one, with him. His behavior has been to attack. See the end of his PMs. I'm going to regret this. He's gone punitive. Would you trust that person to do the right thing at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
1 1
Go to topic listing