Curious on people thoughts as to a recent AZ experience.

[Black-Balled]

Personally, I dont think you did ANYTHING wrong, I just do not think a neg Itrader should be left if the deal wasnt completed (again, either way).. I do feel the seller should have said he would hold it, barring another buyer coming along, and properly explained that... Im admittedly biased by coming from a sellers perspective (for the most part), having heard a potential buyer say they would buy as soon as (fill in the blank), and most times never hear back from them. Im so used to it that it doest even faze me, and like I said, wouldnt even think to leave a neg itrader for it..

I agree with you that you did go out of your way to not mention a name, and seem to simply be asking others opinions on the situation (which you got)..

Move on, and dont sweat it, its not worth even worrying about..

P.S.- PM me what it was and if your still interested in the item, I may even have what you were looking to buy.....

Rain-Man

I concur:
1. He did no wrong;
B: he did express himself with great tact.

My comments about dragging another down were more to the point of what neg itrader would do, not what this thread had done.

 

[batalarms]

iTrader is for deals that have been COMPLETED.The iTrader should be locked by the admin,unless/until there has been a COMPLETED transaction.(Like eBay) Abuse of the iTrader system is a very slippery slope.Are we going to leave a negative for "Nice cue I wish I had the money?" Or,"GLWYS"? What is next? When a prospective buyer does NOT complete the sale,it is part of the sales game.Get over it and move on.If the person that backed out is a serial offender,then start a thread warning others. iTrader is for COMPLETED deals.
Marc

 

[cuesblues]

There is no such thing as "holding it barring another buyer coming along". If it is "barring another buyer coming along" then it isn't being held at all, now is it?

As far as for when to leave negative, it makes far more sense to leave feedback for any deal for which there was a contract. If there is a contract, there is a deal, whether the one party actually gets the item he contracted for at all or in the condition he contracted for, or whether the other party gets the payment or item he contracted for in exchange. A legal contract requires an offer from one party, and and acceptance from another party, with consideration, which is the promise to exchange something of value, or the exchange of something of value.

SELLER: "Hi, I saw where you wished you had -------------.. I have a new one I will sell for $50 paid via PayPal and you pay the USPS shipping . Let me know."
This was the first offer.

BUYER: "Sounds good to me. My only question is can you wait until around this time next week? I just paid a bunch of bills and get paid again next thursday, so I can put some of that money in my account that is linked to Paypal (I usually only keep like $10 in my paypal account). Let me know if that is ok. Thanks."
This was the counteroffer, which modifies the first offer and now becomes the offer.

SELLER: "Yes, next week is fine...let me know when you put the $50 in PayPal and I'll ship it out then. (left out paypal details)
I'll need your mailing address for shipment.
My Paypal account is my e-mail address:"
This is the acceptance of the offer. Since there is an offer, and an acceptance, and consideration (the seller promised to send an item which has value, and the buyer promised to send money which has value), there is a legally binding contract (deal) now in effect.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/contracts-101-make-legally-valid-30247.html

Feedback left for a legally binding deal with a legally binding contract is a more than reasonable use of feedback if ones looks at it without bias.

Your mind is set that there has to be punishment for every non-completed deal.
In the real world that is not the case.
If you were actually involved in cue deals every day like I am, you might have a little more understanding and compassion for people.
It's easy for you talk negative Itrader all the time, because you're not intimately involved.
Normal people don't get all worked up over a cue deal, especially when there is no transaction.
Get involved in a real problem, like the guy who sent out the $1200 cue as a middleman, and is yet to be paid.
There is probably a negative Itrader in there somewhere, that you can really sink your claws in to.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Your mind is set that there has to be punishment for every non-completed deal.

And your mind is set that just because breaking your word is no big deal to you, and just because breaking a legal contract is no big deal to you, that nobody else should be able to have the information to take it into consideration according to their own beliefs. That is all it really comes down to, you just want to force everyone else to have to go by your ethics.

And what I am asking for is not punishment, just a notation that it occurred. Everybody then has the information to use their own ethics to decide how important it is or isn't in their own opinion. But you don't want that, you want to force everyone else to use your ethics by not allowing them to have the information which you don't think they should be taking into consideration in your opinion according to your ethics.

I will ask you again, how does it hurt you in any way if there is negative for breaking legal contracts/backing out of deals? How will it keep you from still choosing who you deal with according to your ethics? The answer is it won't, you just want to force your ethics onto everyone else.

Since you seem to keep missing the questions, as you never answer them, I will repeat them again and make them stand out by themselves as the last thing in the post:

I will ask you again, how does it hurt or affect you in any way if there is negative for breaking legal contracts/backing out of deals? How will it keep you from still choosing who you deal with according to your ethics just like you have always done?

 

[taimedowne]

More often than not in my experience the I'm short til next week guy usually never gets back to me. Not that you aren't a stand up guy but it happens a lot.

 

[Poolplaya9]

More often than not in my experience the I'm short til next week guy usually never gets back to me. Not that you aren't a stand up guy but it happens a lot.

I agree with you that buyers often don't come through. You make a good argument for just saying no when somebody asks you to hold an item--nobody on earth is against somebody not be willing to keep something on hold. You do not however make a good argument for it being ok to break your word/contract/deal and sell the item out from under a guy if you did agree to hold it for whatever reason. Nobody forces you to agree to hold an item. If you don't want to or aren't willing to hold an item and take the risk on the buyer coming through then don't do it, no problem. But if you do agree to do it then that is the agreement, and you need to honor it.

The fact that buyers often don't come through doesn't make it ok for you to break your word/deal/contract. It does however make it perfectly ok for you to just refuse to hold an item to begin with.

And in case you didn't catch my feeling on it in previous posts, if someone does choose to hold an item, and the buyer doesn't come through like they agreed to, then the buyer should get negative feedback because they were the one that broke the deal/contract. It is a two way street.

 

[moneytalks]

I'm new here, but I've noticed it..and most of you guys know good and well that there are LOTS of flaky buyers. If you hold items for everyone that asks then you'll spend a lot of time with your dik in your hand. I know how paying the bills goes believe me, but holding a $50 item for a week for a stranger was the last thing on this guys mind. It wasn't the best way to go about it, but its first come first serve in the forums.

I've been on the losing end of this deal plenty of times.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'm new here, but I've noticed it..and most of you guys know good and well that there are LOTS of flaky buyers. If you hold items for everyone that asks then you'll spend a lot of time with your dik in your hand. I know how paying the bills goes believe me, but holding a $50 item for a week for a stranger was the last thing on this guys mind. It wasn't the best way to go about it, but its first come first serve in the forums.

I've been on the losing end of this deal plenty of times.

What is so hard about saying no to holding an item for a buyer if you don't intend to actually do it?

Or to put it another way, why would you lie to somebody and say you would hold an item when you know that you might not actually do it?

 

[Black-Balled]

What is so hard about saying no to holding an item for a buyer if you don't intend to actually do it?

Or to put it another way, why would you lie to somebody and say you would hold an item when you know that you might not actually do it?

Because the seller wanted to do anything he could to aid in the sale of his item, the ultimate goal of uhh, selling an item?

 

[leto1776]

According to PP9's logic, any potential buyer who says "I'll have the money by xx" who doesn't come through should also be left a negative itrader.

Nah, that's a slippery slope. All this "man of his word" stuff doesn't apply in real life sales, and the only time an item in real life is ever held, is if some form of collateral is held.

 

[ArtT]

I concur:
1. He did no wrong;
B: he did express himself with great tact.

My comments about dragging another down were more to the point of what neg itrader would do, not what this thread had done.

Thanks for the clarification because I certainly wasn't trying to drag anyone down or start a controversy although I feel I may inadvertently have started one. I think what I've learned is that there is some confusion overall as to what the iTrader rating is for. It is obviously for sales and trades, but then we get into a gray of area of deals/binding contracts. It seems most people think the itrader rating is only for deals where some kind of actual physical property and/or money exchange has taken place, not just promises, verbal agreements, etc. Most people seemed to agree that the seller should have kept his word, but feel it would be a slippery slope to include ratings for that. If the ratings are designed for that too, maybe a moderator should let us know. I can definitely understand that sellers often deal with buyers who back out or drag them along, which wasn't something that had occurred to when I started this post. I am just going to let it be and move on.
Thanks to everyone who commented and shared their thoughts.

 

[Island Drive]

Integrity

I bought my home on a handshake from the executor, he kept his word. The next day a realtor found out about the possible sale, offered more, but was told he had to wait in line. In my lifes situation, a person is only ''as good as their word''....and nothing more. It's because of this attitude that great companies and businesses survive while others constantly struggle and fail.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Because the seller wanted to do anything he could to aid in the sale of his item, the ultimate goal of uhh, selling an item?

So lying to get a sale is ok? Why would it be wrong for somebody that had a cue that was warped worse than the letter "S" to list it on here and sell it as being perfectly straight? Because he lied to get a sale. You can say that is worse but the fact remains that all lies made in the attempt to buy or sell an item are wrong. And if it is wrong, it should be documented with feedback IF there was an agreement/deal/contract.

Not to mention that at least in the case above it actually benefited the seller to lie. How does it benefit the seller to lie by saying he will hold an item when he is actually just going to sell it to the first guy that sends him money? It doesn't benefit him in any way so there is an especially strong reason for not doing it aside from it just being wrong. If he says he will not hold the item for the buyer, the buyer is still going to see if he still has it once he comes up with the money anyway. There was no benefit to lying about holding the item and it didn't gain him anything. At least the guy with the crooked cue will benefit by lying, not that it makes it any more right.