B/S/T Etiquette
 

I’ve never had anything bad to say about the BST section on the board before but this past week, two different transactions have begun to trouble me. In both cases, I responded to For Sale posts within a very short period of time after the cards were listed for sale (both cards were group listings where multiple cards were listed for sale at the same time). In each case, I was told by the seller that someone else beat me to the card I wanted. However, it was also clearly expressed to me that the buyer had picked up multiple cards from them.

While I realize that it is in the best interests of the seller to sell more than one card as opposed to a single card sale, I believe that the order in which the buying request is received should dictate who gets the card, not the greater sale amount. Am I in the wrong here or do others agree with me?

If the seller said that someone beat you to the card, I don't understand the problem. Or am I not understanding what happened?

The problem is I have serious doubts about whether the seller is being truthful or just accommodating the individual that is buying more cards from them than I am. Obviously, to their benefit to do so with no real way to prove one way or the other. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out how to overcome this, simply don’t do business with that seller ever again, which is how I plan to address it.

How long after the listing was up did you offer?

Guessing this is the thread...

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=358428

Are you referring to me? As I mentioned in my DM response, I sold the two cards to the first person who messaged me,30 minutes before your post(I have timestamps). They were competitively priced, so I received multiple inquiries quickly. That buyer also offered full price for both cards, while you had only made an offer on one (which doesn’t really matter since they asked first anyway). Not sure why this needed a public post, but alright.

The latter does not change the former. There is nothing to complain about, someone beat you to the card.

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

From what I can tell you are definitely wrong in many ways.

I didn't see anything about offers in the original post, seemed he just wanted to buy a card that was for sale.

So basically you're accusing the seller of lying to you for no apparent reason other than you have doubts. OK, I guess you're entitled to that opinion. Looks like the seller posted a response saying it's not correct and that he has timestamps to prove it.

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer. I don't really have time to explain all the nuance of contract law, but that's the gist. Which is why I used the term offer. It's a legal term that applies even if the seller wasn't open to negotiate. But it's important to understand so people don't mistakenly think that they have a right to the item just because they agree to the listed price. They don't. They can just make an offer to pay that price. Seller has no obligation to accept every offer to pay their price, even if they are first.

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

B/S/T Etiquette
 

I mean it’s irrelevant since I sold the cards to the first person who asked for it which was 30mins before the OP Dm’d me and posted on the thread. Which I told him through DM’s. He wasn’t even in 2nd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see no reason to get upset by a seller exercising his right. If it's proper etiquette to require a seller to accept the first offer (which I disagree with), it should also be proper etiquette to not whine when the seller doesn't sell to you. That's a bigger breach of etiquette to me.

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

I just don't think people should bring emotion into business. So, doing what you have a right to do is your prerogative and not a breach of etiquette.

Correct and that’s what I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Imagine if a seller made this explicit, how would it go over? For sale 1933 Goudey #53 Babe Ruth PSA 3 12K. Please note that I have the right to sell to whoever I want and being the first to say I'll take it does not mean I will sell to you.

Yes, was not implying otherwise, just transitioned into a more general discussion.

Don't see the problem. It would not offend me in the slightest. I'm more bothered by someone who would be offended by that. YMMV

Have you ever had a seller sell you a card knowing you were a collector over a competing buyer who is a flipper? I have. It doesn't bother me at all that a seller reserves the right to choose the buyer who will get his cards. I actually like that. No way should it be proper to expect them to sell to whoever sees it first.

While this would be exceptionally unusual, at the end of the day it wouldnt bother me because

a) Ebay has a block function that is WIDELY CELEBRATED here and this is functionally the exact same thing

b) I typically try not to act like an asshole here, so it likely wouldnt impact me (you reap what you sow)

"Don't see the problem."

Your view is reasonable for a purely public market where strangers buy and sell cards. BST wants to be less public and more intimate than that. Predicated on the assumption that participants are, if not friends, fellow members of a fraternity. As such, it is reasonable to expect treatment more akin to how family members or friends would typically behave. Choosing to ignore the first full price offer in favor of somebody else's subsequent offer would invite resentments and jealousies that friends would try to avoid.

None of this helps the OP, of course, who is apparently undone by the facts.

I think if some zero post count "My old uncle haz interest, please contact him at phishing4dollrs@hotmail.doh for payment arrangements" type of fella, contacted me 1st...and then a well respected, regularly posting Net54 gentleman/gentlewoman contacted me 30 minutes later with their offer to buy...I'd likely accept the 2nd interested party instead.

Not saying that's what happened here obviously...just following the unraveling of this thread. ;)

Classic FAFO thread.

Phil, may I suggest you download the Tapatalk app? You can subscribe to any or all of the B/S/T sections and receive timely notifications of any new threads that are posted.

If the buyer makes an offer and it is accepted by the seller, then that's all that matters, right? n Send money, receive card.

If an offer is made and not accepted, then the seller can do whatever they want with it.

What shouldn't happen is the one of the parties backing out of the deal unless both buyer and seller agree to squash the deal.

Although it would be great to have a BST offender banned/suspended from the BST, but I'm sure the admins for the board don't want any part of mediating or figuring out what to do in these cases.

If a seller or buyer reneges on a deal, then the party that feels offended can start a thread and then watch the train wreck start. Or the offended person can just plan to not deal with the person that reneged.

Rather print one label than 2, also save on shipping and possible fees. No brainer

Unless the ad says it'll be sold to the first person that say's I take it in the BST thread, then the person saying "I'll take it" in a thread without that sale statement wouldn't know if someone PM'd or emailed the seller to say "I'll take it". Just curious, why would a seller not sell a card to someone if it was for the asking price? Bottom line is that the seller can do what they want, but it they "sold" to you, then that would seem like a deal was being sealed.

This -
 

Exactly - until a seller accepts a definite offer that you made him, he can sell to whomever he wants - If multiple cards are involved, it might make all the sense in the world to sell to someone willing to by more than one, even if their offer on "your" card might be lower.

-
I'll always post "I'll take it" in the thread if I'm paying full price and send a pm to the seller. Puts a time stamp on the sale (if I'm first) and alerts fellow members. It also gives other members the chance to post "I'll be backup".

If I'm offering below list I'll just post "pm sent" and assume the card is fair game until the seller comes to a deal with me or another member.
-

You mean it puts a time stamp on your offer, which the seller is free to reject even if for full price and that's apparently fine with some people. Different perspectives, I guess.

Absolutely. There are some people I don't want to do business with, and I don't care what supposed etiquette suggests, I shouldn't have to. It's just not worth it to deal with some people.

I suppose, I've never experienced that but it could happen.

B/S/T in my opinion is great and filled with members who treat each other with fairness and respect.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there has seemed to me to be an unwritten Net54 rule that "the first person to claim an item for sale in the BST gets it."

Unless the seller has had bad experiences with that buyer in the past (or has heard about such from others) or is concerned that the buyer is a bot or something, why wouldn't one sell to the first to claim?

Could not agree more with Phil. Just look at my signature below. I wouldn't have the modest collection I have without net54 and the B/S/T.l

I am sure there are some you don't want to deal with. :)

I agree and have been on this forum several years. There are 100% members I would not sell a card to for several times my asking price. I have even straight up told 3 members I will never sell them a card. To be clear this is an extremely rare thing. I have had easily 1000 transactions on here with only a handful being bad.

Every quarter, we have a Free Pet Food Pantry behind the local mall. Hundreds of vehicles line up surrounding the entire parking lot....some arriving several hours ahead of the 8AM start time.

Last year, one person finally got to the loading spot and asked what the line was all about...they did not even know...just couldn't resist the possibility of something FREE.

Oh - as far as our current discussion, I don't have anything to add; just wanted to participate.

.

Hi Phil
 

Hi Phil, I was the buyer was def saw the post early and messaged the seller. I did come back and see you posted in the thread. About 20 minutes passed by. The seller has time stamps but doesnt need to provide those. There's no back deal arrangement here. I was first to respond.

Wish you the best!

Phil, am I remembering correctly that you posted not too long ago something to the effect that you won't attend any show that doesn't offer you the chance to set up as a dealer?

Phil, what if someone PM'd the seller? It wouldn't be known to anyone but the seller. If the BST ad indicates "first person that posts I'll take it, gets it", then that would seem to make it unambiguous? Perhaps that should be a thing. The first person to post "I'll take it" in the thread should be first in line (assuming they're not trying to negotiate a lower price).


This is very true. I've had MANY transactions with buying, selling, and trading and have never had an issue.

When I'm selling something, I prefer to have buyers PM me instead of posting in the listing because I get a notification of a PM, but I have to go to the thread to look for a post. Regardless, a seller should be able to sell to whomever they want. Most of the time, it will be the first person who responded, but if it isn't, I don't see why a seller needs to explain what they did to anyone.

Time to grab my dabber, because "BINGO!!"

Well yes, a simple post on the thread without an immediate pm to the seller is not enough and can be confusing, that's why I always follow up with a pm right after the post.

If someone pmd the seller before I posted I would assume the seller take that persons offer and hand me a e-tissue to wipe my tears for coming second.

Yes, this is well said. It might be the exception that the first person doesn't get it, but they aren't entitled to it just for being first, and the seller doesn't need to answer to anyone why they bypassed someone. Etiquette doesn't demand an explanation. Sometimes, not saying anything is more polite.

I love Net54’s message feature UI. My heart nearly skips a beat when it pops up.

I agree. In most (perhaps all, but not 100% sure) US states, there is no legal duty to warn a blind kid who is about to dive into an empty swimming pool. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it anyway.

As people living in an actual community, we go above and beyond -- and sometimes even break -- the stated law all the time.

Ugghhhh. The law is therefore written with misleading and thus poor terminology. (Lawyers aren't known for being good writers.)

On the stock market sellers "offer" stock at a certain price. Buyers can take the offerings or "bid" a lower price. Any sellers are then free to hit the bid. Stock prices are therefore always in a state of unstable equilibrium, i.e. a stock's current price is where there's an equal amount of supply and demand but this can change at any moment.

;)

It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.

Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't. ;)

P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world.