B/S/T Etiquette

[bcbgcbrcb]

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?

[jayshum]

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

[bcbgcbrcb]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

How long after the listing was up did you offer?

[Lorewalker]

Guessing this is the thread...

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

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

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.

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

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!

[BRoberts]

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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.

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

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.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

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

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer.

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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 an 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.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

You'd be losing a lot of money mixing up offers=pink sell tickets and bids=blue buy tickets working in a stock brokerage. It's your error, you eat it. Your firm does not. (Unless you quit of course and even then your firm will still take any loss out of any salary owing to you.)

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

That's not consistent with another detail that has the force of law in many jurisdictions including my own. If there are two price tags on an item, the retailer MUST honour the lower price tag at the cash register. In other words, the price tags are treated as the retailer's offer to sell under the law.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

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.

[Casey2296]

-
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.
-

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
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.
-

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).

Originally Posted by Casey2296

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

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

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Fred

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.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Fred

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.

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.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
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.
-

I've done the same thing saying "I'll take it" and It was sold on another platform and they didn't mark it sold. Here' It's just the breaks of the game. You just move on.,BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it.

[toledo_mudhen]

"BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it"

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I've done the same thing saying "I'll take it" and It was sold on another platform and they didn't mark it sold. Here' It's just the breaks of the game. You just move on.,BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it.

I agree. The BST is a great place. I have made lots of buys and sales over the last month. This buy, from there, was from 12/2017,for $2100....I still love looking at it. (I enjoy reasonably well centered cards)

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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?

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

[4815162342]

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.

[Fred]

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.

[Republicaninmass]

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

[JollyElm]

I rarely sell anything here, so it's somewhat irrelevant, but in the past I added something to the effect of, "If multiple people contact me about the same card, I will give preference to the guy I'm friendly with. Hope that isn't a problem."

If it's friend versus flipper (Yes, he can do whatever he wants with a card once he buys it. It's not about that.), the friend always wins...even though we pretty much know nothing about our online Net54 friends, do we??

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

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?

Getting back to the OP's question. ( yes I am aware that the OP's assumption has been proven false) that where a person offering to buy a single card vs a person who offers to buy Multiple cards in a thread. Is it bad etiquette to focus your efforts to the person offering multiple sales vs the single in the case where the single card was "claimed" first? Like most here I log on at best a few times a day. If I had 2 emails offering to meet my terms on a card where one was an offer for multiple cards and one was a single. I would choose to sell to the multiple buyer. First and foremost as almost all BST transactions are sold including postage, the Multiple sale nets me more money for the card. As long as I hadn't already accepted any other offer, I would treat a multiple offer as one for slightly more, because it is. I net a little more and spend less time processing on a per card basis. It is simple economics. The only thing that would trump that is if I knew a collector was focused on a set or player. I have a soft spot for other collectors and might spend a little more on postage to help one. Example if I have a Ryan item I might choose to sell to well known Ryan collector vs buyer who is unknown to
me.
Jmho

[maniac_73]

Original post I made had a price. I received a DM saying I will take it. I told the person the cards are yours. Phil made a post and sent a dm 30 minutes later. I told him sorry I already sold the cards. My buyer confirmed and I have timestamps and screenshots to prove it. Very simple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Original post I made had a price. I received a DM saying I will take it. I told the person the cards are yours. Phil made a post and sent a dm 30 minutes later. I told him sorry I already sold the cards. My buyer confirmed and I have timestamps and screenshots to prove it. Very simple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And it was your telling the person the cards were his that created the contract.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And it was your telling the person the cards were his that created the contract.

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think everyone is in agreement about when the offer and acceptance was made in this case, except Greg, who refuses to look at the case law.

[ullmandds]

So where is the Dental angle here I'm feeling left out?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Original post I made had a price. I received a DM saying I will take it. I told the person the cards are yours. Phil made a post and sent a dm 30 minutes later. I told him sorry I already sold the cards. My buyer confirmed and I have timestamps and screenshots to prove it. Very simple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So greg is wrong. You didn't say in your post "first I'll take it gets it." No offer was made. I guess the capital letters didn't change the law. An advertisement, no matter how specific the essential terms, is not an offer absent that language.

[bcbgcbrcb]

Wow, this thread has been way more entertaining than I could have ever imagined when I started it. I guess now would be a good time to mention that all of the conjecture surrounding the alleged transaction that caused me to post here originally was actually not the transaction that started it all. If I were to reveal the true cause of my frustration now, it would surely be anticlimactic so I’ll refrain from doing so at this time.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Wow, this thread has been way more entertaining than I could have ever imagined when I started it. I guess now would be a good time to mention that all of the conjecture surrounding the alleged transaction that caused me to post here originally was actually not the transaction that started it all. If I were to reveal the true cause of my frustration now, it would surely be anticlimactic so I’ll refrain from doing so at this time.

Well that makes sense if you don't think about it.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bcbgcbrcb

Wow, this thread has been way more entertaining than I could have ever imagined when I started it. I guess now would be a good time to mention that all of the conjecture surrounding the alleged transaction that caused me to post here originally was actually not the transaction that started it all. If I were to reveal the true cause of my frustration now, it would surely be anticlimactic so I’ll refrain from doing so at this time.

So it took you a week to come back and post something? Meanwhile, the person who thought he was the one responsible for your original post is left having to defend himself for something he didn't do. Not cool.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by jayshum

So it took you a week to come back and post something? Meanwhile, the person who thought he was the one responsible for your original post is left having to defend himself for something he didn't do. Not cool.

Seriously like WTF..Talk about etiquette