Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago206
Somehow you are missing whats really going on here. You say you want a Johnson in a 3, right? Ok. Lets say I PM you saying i'll sell you one for $1,000, but you have to wait 2 weeks before I can deliver it. You say "deal". Then I go on an auction site and bid on a PSA 3 Johnson with a max bid of $700. If I win it, I just pocketed an easy $300. If I DONT win it, I email you saying what? "Sorry, but I changed my mind"? Do you now see how this is unethical? I get a free chance at making a profit from you while you tie up your $1,000 and expect to own a Johnson in a 3? In those 2 weeks that you are waiting, you notice a Johnson in a 3 for sale at $750, but you dont buy it cuz you already made a deal with me, right? But you dont even know that you might not even get your $1,000 Johnson. What kind of deal is that???
|
That is a risk someone has to be willing to take by agreeing to give the seller two weeks to sell. I don't think that is an agreement that would be unethical or wrong, but the buyer would have to be assured in some other manner of the seller's intentions to sell. I would say that in a perfect world, if such a deal were to happen, the inability of the seller to sell the card after two weeks would result in the seller paying an agreed some of damages for breach of contract. The buyer would take on a calculated risk of agreeing to buy a card at some future date, with the insurance that if the seller fails to come through, the buyer will receive something in return. However, on the internet, such an agreement would never happen and it would be too burdensome to legally enforce.