First person to commit to sending cash should get it. Too many people flak out at the last minute or want the price but only if that’s with fee protections included. This is within reason of course. Don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer on this one. Buyer who missed out has a right to feel slighted but I don’t think the seller should be condemned either.

Saying "I will see you in court." sounds like a threat to me. It doesn't have to be physical violence to be considered a threat.

I'm sure you can figure out the incredibly obvious. Not a threat, because you're doing it, so it's just a promise and a promise isn't a threat. Can't wait to see the court filing of this crap :rolleyes:

Bst
 

The part about - " See you in court " really ??

Pretty simple. Its called accountability.

You don't follow the rules, you loose the privilege. We can all do our part. How hard is it to have to say, "I'll take it" in the initial thread and do everything else you're not comfortable with via DM. After all its luck of the draw to whomever sees it first, and pulls the trigger.

I'd rather have the I'll take it on the original post and if the deal falls flat for any reason it goes to the next person. It helps if the seller puts in all the wants in the original post. Money options, what's included what isn't, and what is up to the buyer above the initial price like insurance or type of shipping. Or you can work it out via DM, and if not happy as a buyer the next man or gal up has their turn in order from the original post.

The other option is to have all the backdoor BS of DMs, and people being upset, which is becoming more frequent.

It protects both parties, and it will be clear as day instead of mud. It doesn’t have to be patrolled, just enforced for either party that breaks the rules set in place. Yes, some may still get screwed out of something, but the instigator will loose their privileges.

I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said. I will update the thread down the road with my follow up.

In post #54, the seller posted a screenshot of your message to him saying what I quoted.

Not what you said? The messages were already posted. You said "I will see you in court. I give you my word on that". Are you alleging the messages are doctored? Looks like I had it right, you're just blatantly telling obvious lies.

There have been probably 10s of thousands of transactions on the B/S/T without any issues with the way things are now set up. A few recent complaints don't seem to be reason to try to force everyone to follow some set of rules that can never be enforced.

It’s fine, I’ll just refrain from selling on net54 anymore. If somehow a majority thinks that commenting on a thread “I’ll take it” somehow supercedes DM’s that I’m currently conversing with saying the same thing, just waiting until payment is made to mark sold. I messaged the comment poster, told him I already had others interested and somehow he and a majority on here still think he had a claim to it absolutely blows my mind. But if this is what is to be expected on this forum, it isn’t worth the trouble. I made a post, had people DM me without comments, hadn’t officially sold it, he commented and I messaged to let him know that others were interested, was confirming his interest and payment plan if a sale was to be made and if he was ok with all of it. Somehow, his 6 hour lapse of response to me telling him others were already involved before his comment still has people on here saying he had a right to it. Then one of those interested before him agreed and paid, and I mark the item sold, then he responds 4 hours after I marked sold in my messages asking for payment info and I inform him the item sold to one of those interested parties I mentioned in my original message to him, he becomes angry, throws a tantrum, and I politely ask him to stop messaging me and have to block him. Then he starts a forum post to drag my name for him not getting his way. Childish behavior. I took initiative, messaged him after his comment to let him know that he was not the first to want the item, but I hadn’t marked sold until I got payment and somehow I’m still in the wrong for most of the comments. Literally have been buying and selling for years and never experienced anything like this. Good luck to all those who try to do right through active communication! Doesn’t seem to be the norm here. Apparently making a comment on a post makes you queue to the head of the line over those who privately message and for some reason the seller should stop all communication with anyone who failed to comment on the post and wait for however long it takes for the commenter to actually respond to a message. And by the sound of it, could and should wait days before moving forward with other “actively engaging” interested parties.

Agreed. If people just do the right thing, and I think almost all do, there are no issues.

I've witnessed many of issues, and I'm far from an old timer here.

How hard is it to follow a simple, fair for all, outlined etiquette guideline for sellers and buyers?

Every issue I've seen falls directly on DMs. That's 100% reversible doing everything on the initial post
There's no gray area for either side to hide behind. Why wouldn't you want that protection?

Go 2 posts up for exhibit A.
When you have two different buying avenues, its gonna have bad implications.

-
Every thread needs a card. I don't have a Jackson so this'll have to do.
-

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

I'll agree with OJ on this one. I can see both sides, but I'm not sure that either party acted unreasonably. Well, until things got ugly, that is.

Sometimes we're going to lose out on cardboard to someone else who gets the deal done faster. If that's because we're prioritizing a dinner or sleep or something else, then that's our decision to make. If it's my buddy and we've done a lot of deals together, that's one thing. But unless a seller confirms that it's ours or that he'll hold it for us, I don't think you can just assume that it's yours or that it's being held for you, regardless of how many posts someone has on the board.

And I have to agree with the seller that an initial offer to take it, followed by radio silence doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, especially if it's someone that I've never dealt with in the past, and particularly in light of all of the other responses that were reportedly rolling in fast and furious.

It's just cardboard, my friends. Nothing to get that excited about. With any luck, our would-be buyer will find another one at a similar price, which should bring some measure of relief to the whole business.

Do as you please, but you have absolutely no basis for legal action at all. There is no binding contract. Even if I had treated you unfairly, which I did not, the only way you have any case is if I took your money, which I didn’t, and didn’t give you the item in that exchange. Without any exchange or loss on your part, there are no legal ramifications withstanding. You simply didn’t get your way and are throwing a temper tantrum. Honestly, I’m glad you didn’t respond and didn’t get the item, which has already been shipped to the buyer, because I don’t want any connection to you at all. This entire thing is absurd and every judge in this country would laugh you out of the courtroom. I wish you luck on your hunt for another Jackson, I am for real!

What do the words, "i'll take it," convey if not an intention to take it? This just isn't complicated IMO. The man said I'll take it, a follow up message was sent clarifying if he was good with no fee, the card was still available at that point, give the man a chance to finalize the deal. Good Lord, the pretzel twisting here is ridiculous IMO.

There was another thread where it was discussed ad nauseum about whether or not just saying "I'll take it" guarantees the right to buy something. I don't think any agreement was reached there, but there were plenty of opinions saying that legally, it doesn't.

In your case, the seller was already contacting others when you said you would take it if still available. If he had already messaged others who had directly contacted him about agreeing to terms, I don't see why he would have to drop that and just accept your offer. If he were selling at a show and someone else was discussing buying a card with him and you just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. I'm not sure it's different just because this happened online.

Quoting the wrong person? You claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

It is, in fact, literally what you said. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown.

Want to address your blatant lie? I don't care about who is or is not a lawyer or this other crap. I never claimed anything about layers of confirmation whatsoever in any direction.

You should be flattered someone thinks you're a lawyer. :eek:

I think the bigger issue is the radio silence. We all have our own idea around what is an appropriate window to give someone. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to move on if the counterparty has gone dark and isn’t responding to requests to confirm key details.

It was a few hours. He didn't go dark at all, as I see it. Some of us aren't staring into our devices all day lol.

Peter, you have over 33,000 posts. Clearly, you're staring into some device that has net54 visible on it more than most people. :)

LOL funny. Some days more active than others, depends on work, family, etc. I think I tend to pick up a lot of post counts in threads like this.

LOL and a card.

The biggest lie ever perpetuated here was pretending this site is a "community" (with all the respect and goodness that implies).
A "school of sharks" would clearly be a more accurate descriptor. :(

It's a community until 2 or more people want the same item. Then it turns into a school of sharks.

And then the losing shark throws a public tantrum, threatens to take it to court, and gets caught telling outright lies while playing the victim.

But again it is not what I said. I Said I will see you in court. I give you my word on that. Get it? A promise not a threat. You can have last word I am done..

When a market is hot, and the sports card market is very hot right now does make for interesting conversations.

While not as hot as during covid, I can tell you (with the caveat that this is mostly for newer cards) that the world is more like 1988-91 than than 2008-11.

And when markets are that hot and a popular item is posted at a fair price there will be competition for said item.

From reading this thread I believe the seller should have posted after the "I'll Take it" post that as noted he is working with people who contacted him first and he will get back to JS if they pass on said item

And I don't know about you but calling someone a low life and saying you'll see them in court implies future behavior. It will not come to pass for me, but I would not want to do business with someone acting that way.

Sounds like Peter is about to pick up some new clients as well.

Regards
Rich

I won't have the last word, you will in court. Because your case is totally legitimate and real and you will be taking this excellent court to case where you will surely win and be vindicated.

Again, you claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

You admit right there it sounds like a threat, but it is not because it is "not what I said".

However, It is, in fact, literally what you said. Verbatim. Word for word. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown where you did this.

In retrospect, OP was obviously correct to wrap up with the earlier responders rather than making a deal with the guy who responded to the situation by lying, throwing a fit, issuing threats, and allegedly-and-totally-actually suing in court over a tiny and petty dispute over who should get first dibs. Can't wait to see the judge's ruling in court, which will definitely happen.

Haha. The only things I have ever done in this space are to help some collectors out with their issues for no charge.

I think once something is posted for sale on the B/S/T, then all communications should only be on the B/S/T. Posting on B/S/T, then using other sources to communicate with others, while not updating the B/S/T post, can definitely confuse things, as shown in this situation.

That wouldn't work as many people have stuff listed on several different sites. Plus as Peter pointed out not everyone is always on the internet so someone posting it was sold shouldn't need to be updated for several hours or the next day.

No one should be so hurt over this. Seller was trying to sell. A bunch of people wanted to give him their money. He went with someone that gave it quickly. Semi-uncool of someone said I’ll take it and he didn’t go that route. Perhaps. Lesson learned though - if it’s a hot item say I’ll take it and get the seller paid.

I'll repost what I said before.

There have been probably 10s of thousands of transactions on the B/S/T without any issues with the way things are now set up. A few recent complaints don't seem to be reason to try to force everyone to follow some set of rules that can never be enforced.

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

My vote for best post in the thread. I will also be waiting to see court papers to settle the this.

I would love to be in attendance if there ever was a trial. There will be scenes as captivating as the movie "A Few Good Men" ----that I am sure of.

Joe Jackson always entangled in controversy.

Then say it's cross posted.

What difference does that make? The part about people being here all the time? It actually makes it easier to have it posted in one place here vs having DMs and posts with items for sale here. Its an automatic reveal for this board. If a seller isn't online for 12 hours at least people that post I'll take it have an order of the pecking order in plain view. A DM won't be answered either in that time frame.

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

Are you scared to have it changed so everything is in the open?

As I said I will update down the road.

We don't even know Cody's full name do we? No, he's not suing him. And much as I think he was in the right here at least until the aftermath, he would certainly lose. There was no contract to be breached.

My experience is that people around here tend to value their privacy a lot when it comes to what they’re buying, and in terms of what they have. So requiring that everyone post publicly that they’re interested (and might end up owning it) seems like it would face a lot of resistance.

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

Bingo. You're on to me.

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

This isn't a place for privacy. I mean we all are stamped here in many ways. Names, personal phone numbers, emails what's collected etc etc.

Honest people aren't the problem. Neither are people that say "I'll take it on a post".

Hell, most the guys know who has what anyway. People post items worth 5 or 6 figures all the time here.

Must be. Transparency must bother you?

One internet non transaction is not going to make Cody subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey.

I guess you didn't read the thread talking about showing off collections people have. Plenty of people there said they are very hesitant to tell people what they have or show them anything. Also, I don't know about you, but my phone number isn't posted anywhere on the board, and my email may have been on some old B/S/T threads, but with all of the scammers that pop up, I've stopped posting that as well.

https://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358153

Pretty sure if you set up a poll, I wouldn't be the only one voting against your idea.

Go ahead and draft up the rules that you think should apply to the BST. And then lobby Leon to make them the law of the BST.

I wish you the best of luck!

I posted this earlier, but it got lost in the rest of the thread so no one really commented on it.

According to the seller, he was already discussing purchase of the card with others who had contacted him when the OP posted that he would take it if still available. If the seller was a dealer selling the card in question at a show and someone else was discussing buying the card from him and the OP just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. Is it different just because this happened online?

I mean, it doesn’t seem rude and inappropriate to me in an online setting. Largely because he doesn’t know who else is having what other conversations. That and it’s not an interruption the way it is in person.

On the other hand, demanding that the seller has to sell to you or getting agitated over the internet could start to seem a bit much.

It's a mantra of the BST that "I'll take it" takes precedence over continuing negotiations. And of course it's different to walk up to a table and try to undermine a potential deal in progress before your eyes, and posting online where there is no indication a deal has been made or is imminent.

Actually I did. I also see many other posts that people may take as harmless, but show a lot. Every board I've belonged you get to know people, and find out about them, directly or non directly. It's a public forum.

Many people have a ton of info in posts along with what they're collecting or looking for with contact information. Go on Google and much of what you post here can be found. You have your name and state. That's all it takes for people up to no good.

People that have signatures have all kinds of info. The sad thing is its to help, but also is a bad thing for people looking for targets.

True, it may not be rude because they don't know what other discussions are going on, but it seems to be analogous. I don't see why the seller has to immediately ignore everyone else who he may have already been in contact with just because someone else says "I'll take it". I've definitely seen listings where that is indicated so if someone says that in their listing, then they should follow it. If they don't say it explicitly, why should they have to drop everyone else just to contact someone else?

If someone says I'll take it at your price, WHY would you continue to negotiate with someone ELSE hoping that they eventually get to the place you are already at? This is not making any sense to me. The only issue is should Cody have given Jonathan more time before looking elsewhere, and I say yes. This isn't complicated -- the answer to that question is either yes or no, depending on your POV. Or, if you think contract law is the only relevant consideration, then fine, Cody was free to do whatever he wanted.

I'm sure if Leon changed the policy you would.

I think it hinges on whether “I’ll take it” trumps all else, and as long as you’re the first to say those magic words, then it’s yours.

I think the general idea is that saying “I’ll take it” is tantamount to clicking the “buy it now” button on eBay. It automatically yanks the item off the platform and no one else can attempt to buy it, and all pending offers are automatically rescinded.

I'm not saying I would negotiate with someone who was offering a lower price, but what if they just asked for better pictures or had a question about the card? If they were the first person to contact me about it and I had already responded to them, I don't know that I would just tell them, too bad, someone else bought it. It certainly wouldn't happen that way in person.

I'm sure if Leon changed the policy, there would be a lot of unhappy members and a lot fewer items posted for sale.

So you would not tell them and lead them on? I am not following where you are going with this.

Because with the first person it was a cash plus trade deal for my card. He could not send pics of the cards he wanted to include in the deal for a few hours when he got off work. In the meantime I had an extremely generous cash offer. Personally I waited until the first guy could send me pictures of the trade part of his offer to make my decision. I felt that was the correct thing to do.

I would probably tell them that someone else is offering to buy it and then tell the first person who asked about it that they need to make a decision if they're going to buy or not because someone else is offering to buy it. It gets back to the discussion in the other thread about etiquette. I don't see a problem with the first person expressing interest getting priority even if they didn't commit to buying right away. Again, like at a show, if someone is looking at a card, someone else isn't going to be able to buy it until the first person puts it down and says no.

And there you probably would have been justified, because the first guy did not express a willingness to buy on your terms, but proposed a different deal.

Again, how is "I'll take it" not a commitment? What more was Jonathan supposed to do other than cancel all his plans for the day in order to hang by his computer or iphone anxiously awaiting Cody's next message? You are making this endlessly complicated for some reason, I just don't see it.

News to me that everyone here can see my full name, phone number, and email. Leon knows my phone number and people I've bought and sold with know my full name and address. And that's it.

As others have said, one miscommunication doth not a fundamental problem make. Most of my experiences on BST have been pretty simple - communications by DM have been limited to giving paypal information and address or discussion of shared collecting interests. Not sure what purpose it would serve to make people have to share that for everyone to see.

Sorry, my post you responded to wasn't clear. I meant I would tell the first person I was talking to that they needed to decide if they wanted the card because someone else was offering to buy it.

I would tell the first person someone had taken it and I would get back to them if it fell through. Your response basically just blows off the I'll take it and renders it meaningless. Fine, if you think this is just contract law.

I think it's fairer to the first person who contacted me about it and is more like what would happen in person. Fortunately (and unfortunately), just about everything I have sold on here has not been in such high demand that I've had to deal with an issue like this.

Are there limits to the plenipotentiary powers of the phrase “I’ll take it”?

What if it was someone you didn’t trust or had burned you before? Or someone who was new around here? Or if it was me?! It just seems like there has to be some limits to just how powerful the phrase can be.

Lots of threads make me question what people spend their time on -
this one is special in that regard. I am guilty too for following it. I think a summary of this major issue is a seller posted something for sale, a buyer may or may not have said he’d take it but someone else paid the seller first and got it. Devil is in the details but overall get over it.

Actually, I asked Leon directly today.His response was to post in both. That's the issue I see in this. Some post in one or the other not in both. Leon says you should.

What's so bad about keeping it in one place vs multiple?

I'd say the person that ended up with this is staying quite, because he doesn't want to be involved in this thread. Not because people know what he paid for said item.

How easy would it be for both parties if it was done in the BST post vs having both places that is causing issues. Maybe it will get more frequent,maybe it won't.

What I do know is if it's given one place it won't hurt the BST at all. People will still buy, and sell, and it will be done in order so no one can feel slighted. It protects both parties, and the others behind the initial winner if it breaks down. If you don't want people to know who you are get a burner account for BST.

I hear you on that I'm lucky to get one lowballing person contact me half the time haha.

I could be wrong but I think most people would give precedence to the first I'll take it and not give the first contact a right of first refusal at that point.

If anything the seller is guilty of offering something for sale at a more than reasonable price where a bunch of people wanted it. A rarity here.