Who's the A-hole?
 

Just thought you might want to play a version of the Reddit game, where the poster recounts something that happened and asks which person is the a-hole in the situation.

I had a transaction with a gentleman on this board a while ago (it doesn't matter when). We had done many deals before. It was a lot of maybe 20 NMty cards from a 50s set break. Commons and minor stars.

The cards were priced individually. Buyer picked 20 cards that he wanted, negotiated a discount for the group, paid the money, got the cards. Buyer looked at the cards, thought several were not NMty but lesser grade. Seller asks buyer to send all the cards back for review. Buyer sends cards.

Seller reviews cards, agrees some cards were over-graded, but notes others were under-graded. Seller offers to either keep the original terms for all 20 cards or else cancel the deal. Buyer says that he wants the 15 or so cards that are acceptable to him but wants a refund on the rest. Seller says it is all or nothing. Big argument ensues.

Who's the a-hole here?

Just FYI, the story ends well, buyer and seller eventually compromise and agree to terms, and have done several more deals since.

I’ll go with the guy that wanted to cherry pick cards out of a “lot” sale.

Buyer is the a-hole. Seller has no obligation to agree to a different deal than was originally made. Seller was willing to cancel the deal if buyer wasn't happy. Buyer has no complaint at that point. Buyer has no right to buy the cards in a smaller lot if seller doesn't want to sell that way.

I think it's ok to say, both were kind of A-holes, both figured it out, and both moved on.

We're all A-holes sometimes when the situation arises. Sometimes you have to be one to advocate for yourself or someone else. Sometimes, somebody may just naturally BE an everyday A-hole. ;)

There were a series of issues here, but the entire thing has its roots in some of the cards being overgraded. Were clear, hi-res scans or photos provided pre-sale, along with proper noting of any blemishes that the scans failed to pick up?

Regardless, the buyer thought he was getting something different than what he signed up for. Upon reinspection, the seller agreed with the buyer's condition assessments, so they have admitted that oversight. Since the original error rests on the shoulders of the seller, a better compromise than "all or nothing" should have been granted by the seller. Seller is the source of the initial problem and completely fails to bend a bit as the result of his oversights. Hence, seller is the bigger problem.

Also, the buyer is clearly only interested in cards of a certain condition and wouldn't have added them to the discounted deal if he had known about the issues.

Personally, if it wasn't a ton of money, I would have likely acquiesced to the buyer's wishes and moved on. Not worth the time or aggravation. If not:

The easiest solution? Simple. Meet in the middle. Crunch the numbers between the full and discounted prices and offer the remaining cards at whatever that happy median turns out to be. How hard is that? I can't see how anybody would take issue with that logic. If at that point the buyer says, "No, thanks", then it's time to just give a full refund and move your merchandise elsewhere. The seller would have done all they could as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't phrase that very well. Hundreds of cards were offered, buyer picked 20 that he wanted. I updated the thread. Thanks.

Seller should make it right, HE is the one who overgraded the cards in the first place. How is this on the buyer? Common sense wise that is, I'm not giving a contract law answer.

I don't understand how offering a full refund and return isn't the reasonable course of action from the seller who potentially overgraded a few cards out of a huge lot. Beyond allowing a return with full refund, I fail to see how the seller was required to break up the lot. That seems unreasonable to me.

Seller offered a full refund and allowed a return. That IS making it right.

I have found in the baseball card collecting community we need to know both peoples names. The one who isn't the A-Hole is the one that is your friend or has given you better deals over the years.:p

How about none of the above?

It should be okay to disagree on stuff, and for the disagreement to take some time to figure out. That process doesn’t require anyone to be guilty of a-hattery.

Now if someone had done something egregious, like ignore the other party and refuse to engage, or get refunded but refuse to return the cards, then sure, plenty of hattery activities there.

If the other person comes on here with his perspective, this thread will get much more interesting. Right, Al ? :D

Tim, don’t try and argue with Peter. He is a contrarian and would argue with a stump.

You clearly state:

The cards were priced individually. Buyer picked 20 cards that he wanted, negotiated a discount for the group, paid the money, got the cards.

That is the operative phrase to me. Once they were returned you start new negotiations on the 15 cards he found acceptable based on the original offer price.

Life is complicated, not every solution needs to be.

Ah, if only the cards had been slabbed and professionally graded. Transaction would have gone off without a hitch. :)

cc: jingram058

(I guess I'm the a-hole. :))

This is why a smart buyer always asks for a scan on raw cards. Then, he can't easily come back after receipt of the cards and say, "Wal gee Edgar . . ."

I think the buyer and seller negotiated and agreed on a deal. Nobody was compelled or under pressure to do the deal. The deal included individual price negotiation on each card and then a bulk discount.

I don’t think either is an asshole, but I certainly think seller was under no obligation to accommodate and I think his all or nothing (after the fact) offer, was more than fair.

+1 , no assholes just people “doing business “ .. Perhaps doing business a little bit too hard but nothing to get wound up about , When there’s a “Lot” - there’s gonna be some differing opinions

I guess I took the "big argument ensues" to be more than just a differing of opinions.

Yes, it would be fun to see if he comments. He hasn't yet.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Wow, Brent throwin' down. I wish I had the back story on that. Our candidates for A-hole could be growing.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Well summarized.

Back in the mid-1980s, just as Kirby Puckett's 1985 Topps cards were taking off, one of my regular buyers from New York called about them. He knew I broke cases, and he knew centering varied, as he'd purchased cards in bulk quantities from me before. We haggled a bit on price, and finally I said I'd sell them all to him if he'd take every one I had, at $1.00 each. I gave him the approximate quantity range, and we had a deal.

In the next couple of days, as I was pulling them all together, it became obvious to me that the price of Pucketts was on the move. But, as in past deals with this guy and others, I kept my word and shipped him every Puckett I had. All had sharp corners, fresh from vending.

After they arrived, he called to tell me he was buying about 300 of them and returning the other hundred or so that weren't well centered. This really annoyed me, to say the least. When I reminded him the price negotiated was based on him taking them all, he complained that he could only sell the worst of them for a dollar at the shows he attended. This really set me off. "Then sell the worst ones at break-even, and make your tidy profit on the best ones," I said. By then the card was selling hot at $3.00 or more and rising fast.

His reply: "How about this; I'll buy them all and we'll just never do business again." I said, fine, and although he'd been a nice guy and one of my favorite customers to hear from, we never communicated again.

Anyone who buys and sells raw cards knows grades are subjective though. We, unlike a lot of auctions sell raw cards and assign them grades. While we strive to be accurate, differences of opinions occur. In those rare instances we offer a full refund, but no renegotiation.

Whichever end of this transaction someone is on I'm sure they probably think the other party is being the asshole.
For me personally, I'm not arguing over something as trivial as a baseball card. When the seller stated "It's all or nothing" I'd have asked him to send the refund for the entire lot and moved on.

No A hole here. Seller has an obligation to advertise properly, and if the cards are not ALL near mint as advertised, then the seller may return them and rescind the agreement. The initial legal issue in this case is whether the cards are all near mint and what standard should be used to define near mint.

Once the cards were returned because they all did not comply with the terms of the contract (I.e. condition), then the original contract has been rescinded and neither party has any obligation to the other.

The buyer then attempted a new agreement, which the seller did not agree to. At that point, neither part has any obligation to the other, so if they cannot agree on new terms, they should simply walk away. Instead, both became emotional but there was no reason for that since neither had an obligation to the other.

The real problem is that neither party appears versed in basic contracts.

Seller is the a-hole. If you won't budge on price even after being shown that your cards are over-graded, you're the a-hole.

Then nobody was "the A-hole"

Nevermind, found the a-hole.

A seller is not an a-hole because he doesn't lower his price for you. He is free to sell his cards for any price he wants, and free to walk away from any offer, even if you believe it to be reasonable. Your comment shows a sense of entitlement that needs to be gone from our society.

I concur.

Holy shit you're dumb. It's truly remarkable how stupid you are. Try again...

Seller sells you 20 cards he says are "Near Mint". Cards arrive in the mail. Seven of them have obvious creases. You send him pictures showing the creases. He agrees, "sorry, I must have missed those". You ask for a partial refund. He says, "no, my price is my price".

If you're on Team Seller, you're also the asshole.

Speaking of dumb, that's not how the conversation in this thread went. So try again.

Regardless, if seller says he will give a full refund, only an a-hole finds that to be unreasonable.

IMHO, buyer is the A-hole. I agree with the seller's argument, all or nothing since it was a bulk deal.

This all reminds me of the observation everyone has one

Frosty, be honest: You often think you're the only intelligent person on Net54, don't you?

LOL. Sometimes they can be useful. It was only 4 years ago that KatyPerrysBootyHole got the national scoop on the Jose Quintana for Jimenez and Cease trade between the Cubs and White Sox. That was one of the best trades ever announced because, as per protocol, the sports networks all credited the source.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

There are plenty of intelligent people perusing the forum. Most of them just choose not to engage because they have no interest in joining the circus.

Never a partial refund. Only a full refund.

I am in this camp but there can be exceptions if both parties are agreeable. But generally speaking, it's all or nothing (a refund). Too many times we see cherry pickers :(
.