It's pretty simple, really. You can be a man, and honor your word. You may not get your replacement right away, and you may end up paying more than you would have. Is this card really worth ruining your reputation over?

Would implementing a fee for using the BST board eliminate these problems ?

That has been suggested before and won't happen on this watch.

Forget about getting lawyers involved, just send Papelbon.:eek:

That Dan did not even see that as an option -- thus the "what else can I do?" -- is pretty disturbing.

From afar I see both sides. But in the end I think a card is yours until it's not yours and even though it might rub people the wrong way, keeping your card is your right. I think it'll make people less willing to do business with you, but I also don't see any real harm done if funds are returned.

The secondary sales seems independent of the transaction between buyer and seller, though I understand they add to the frustration.

My experiences on BST have been overwhelmingly positive, but I have had three bad ones…two moderately bad in a piss you off kind of way, the other probably a seven on a scale of 1 to 10.

Since you sold the card to a friend, can't you just explain what happened and buy it back? Seems reasonable to me. You are then at least no worse off for the experience.

Perhaps Eric unlike Dan is a man who keeps his word and doesn't want to do that.

That analysis would apply equally if Dan had reneged because he found someone willing to pay more. Would you bless that too?

Or the obvious...GoBucs got a better offer somewhere and the card is (re)sold, so he cannot honor the deal...no idea if this is true but it would be simple to just honor the deal and move on...I cannot see another reason not to honor the deal.

Joshua

This is how it was done at the business school I went to :D

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...ictureid=19165

I agree with this statement, but disagree with how you are applying it to this situation.

Once fully paid for, the OP was the owner of the card. The seller may have still had possession of the card, but ownership had changed hands.

So yes, a card is yours until its not, but I think in this case.....it was not the seller's card anymore.

So if an instant after the deal was done Dan's house had burned down and the card with it, Eric would have been out of luck because he was now the owner? No, because Dan still had title according to the law, until he completed his obligations with respect to shipping.

Section 2-401(2) of the UCC provides that “title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.”

But all that, to me, is beside the point.

Dan, bad deal on your part, bud. Once you agreed to the deal, you should have honored it. Once you received the funds, that pretty much sealed it. While nothing legally was done wrong, and this isn't something any of us haven't seen before or are surprised that it happens, it is, for lack of a better term, shady. I will be sure to avoid any deals with you in the future, and I imagine others on this board will or already are.

Leon, do you think it should be a BST rule that you have to have the card in hand before putting it up for sale/trade? I agree that there is no logical way to enforce this, but just having the rule would possibly prevent at least some of these shady characters from trying this here.

What do you think?

Always the truculent one ;)

+1

I'm not asking for anyone's sympathy or support on this one and furthermore understand Eric's frustration and those who feel my decision is/was dishonorable, but at the end of the day the card is mine to do with what I choose. If some of you don't agree and opt not to do business with me in the future then so be it. There are many, many other avenues available for selling cards at our collective disposal so losing this particular avenue to a percentage of the board is not going to influence my decision one way or another. Neither will anyone's opinion of me as a person, seller, or otherwise.

That said, I have already expressed to Eric that I will absolutely sell him the card (which I do indeed still possess) at the price we agreed upon once I am able to locate and secure a suitable replacement. I know many of you feel I should do that now, and although you are certainly entitled to that opinion, that is not the course I'm choosing to take with the card at this time. This will be my last comment on this particular subject, although I do reserve the right to defend myself against any additional erroneous accusations.

I think the fewer rules the better, just like govt. Less is better. As long as no one is out any money and it's not too frequent of an occurance then I prefer to stay out of it.

As a long-time Seller on both EBay & right here on Net54, I can't imagine reneging on a deal once the $ had changed hands, EXCEPT if BOTH parties were in agreement to cancel.

GoBucs should think a bit an do the right thing---COMPLETE the deal w/ Cosmo!

Your reputation is at stake, if that means ANYTHING to you.

(Written BEFORE Post 67 was showing ( so apparently he doesn't)

See his post above. It doesn't. Not being without a Mantle rookie means more.

Good grief. Bryce Harper would call this a "clown deal".

Personally, I don't see how holding on to it for a finite amount time outweighs the amount of crap you're taking here, but it's your life.

Also, as crappy as this situation is, it sounds like the OP is (or at least should be) more pissed at himself for hastily selling his card. I understanding wanting to get your cash out of it to help cushion the blow, but it could have waited two days til the new one showed up.

The OP had every right to expect Dan would deliver the card as promised.

Actually at one point, the seller had both the card and the payment.

Just because he still had possession of the card does not make it his.

Eric honored his portion of the agreement by paying the seller.

The seller's next move should have been to put that card in the mail.

Its that simple!

Lesson learned by both the OP and me as well. Too bad it had to happen like this.

Excellent. Count me among those who have no interest in ever doing business with you. Thanks in advance for your agreement never to bid on anything I might list in the BST. Life is too short to deal with people like you if it isn't absolutely necessary.

100% agree

I think it's one of these...

BUST A DEAL, FACE THE WHEEL.

http://i741.photobucket.com/albums/x...pspppbhni5.jpg

Just to play devil's advocate here ......how come it is perfectly acceptable on Ebay for a buyer to purchase a card, send the money via paypal, and then have a change of heart and want to cancel the transaction?? A seller is never afforded the luxury of cancelling a transaction. That has happened to me there more times than I care to imagine. Is the BST held to a different standard than Ebay?? Again, just pondering here.....

It's not. Whoever said that it was?

Just because ebay may allow something doesn't make it ethical.

Touche.

Eric, sorry to hear of this. Thank you for sharing so I know to avoid the seller.

Everyone is making too much out of this. I got screwed and it is what it is.

Long story short, if I wasn't getting this Mantle, I wouldn't have sold mine. I'm certainly not going to ask the buyer to sell it back to me, that's bad business and not how I operate.

I will continue to look for another Mantle now to fill a void in my collection. This is part of my PSA set.

My only reason behind posting this thread was to bring caution to any others that may be presented with an opportunity to do business with this same seller - you should at least be aware of this before deciding to engage in a transaction.

I said "I disagree", not the law disagrees. I'm glad to know the UCC (and therefore most states) agrees with the OP, but as many have already said, the legality is hardly the issue here. And based on your last statement (But all that, to me, is beside the point) I think you and I agree morally.

Yes we are definitely on the same page as an ethical/moral issue, Dan should have completed the deal for sure.

I don't even understand the seller's reluctance to honor the deal...he's not too attached to the card since he's shopping around for a replacement. I guess the damage this has done to his reputation is worth holding onto a card that he's shopping around. Weird.

....and this is why i don't buy high end cards.

I understand not wanting to sell a card until I have replaced it, I just did that in fact, that makes sense to me, but that does not justify reneging on a completed deal.

Best comment in the whole thread!

Jeff

Should have posted this originally... here is the card that caused the whole mess.

No it does not. I could understand maybe if it was a rare card, but it's not. This guy just wrecked his trading rep on Net54 on a card that he's looking to replace.

Yes, but the thinking is that you would rather have the one you are looking to replace than none at all. I just did that with an Aaron rookie -- I bought a new one before selling my old one. It is irrational to some extent (what collector isn't) but I didn't want to not have an Aaron rookie.

But all I am saying is I understand the mindset, not condoning the behavior. Dan was dead wrong here.

Looks like he has sold a few '51 Bowman Mantles on the B/S/T in the past. Why keep this one, Dan?

I don't think about ethics here. I think practically all retail stores allow returns these days. The next time I return something to Costco or Home Depot, I don't really think I'm doing anything ethically wrong (unless of course, I opened the item in question).

I think selling transactions generally favor the buyer in cases like these and allow returns because the buyer might not know exactly what he or she is getting. You see the item online, but not until you actually get it in hand, do you see what it is. You see the item in the store, but it's not until you are home and see how that item you bought works or fits as you expected (e.g., a mattress or a part). I agree that allowing returns is generally much, much tougher on small sellers than the big box stores, especially in terms of cash flow.

And what does any of this have to do with baseball cards where a buyer is free to ask questions if for any reason the scan isn't adequate? And I think the original example wasn't even a return just a cancellation before receipt.

Mom!!!
 

Tell his MOM!!!:rolleyes:

He sold it to someone else for more money. The most plausible answer.

He said he did not. And Eric was paying a strong price for that card, IMO.

Well that settles it, no way he would lie.

I don't think he would, actually. He has been pretty candid about his misbehavior.