Business Ethics opinions needed Please

[danmckee]

Originally Posted by drc

If the card was really away being graded and the buyer agreed to back out of the $400 deal, I side with the seller. If the buyer agreed to nix the original sale, the buyer agreed to nix the original sale. I'm assuming there wasn't an agreement that the seller would return later and sell the card for $400.

The card was purchased by the buyer at $400. He wanted the card for $400. He wound up paying $700 and feels he was not treated properly but had to have the card. There was never a deal to cancel the original sale, the seller made that decision on his own.

[HRBAKER]

This can happen when you "have" to have something. No way I do that deal but to each their own. Seller may have heard it was "Get a 10" month at PSA, pulled the card and then forgot to change his website.

[drc]

The answer is if the buyer agreed to vacate the original sale, he agreed to vacate the original sale. If he wanted to make a stink about the situation and the $400 he just paid, he could have done it at the time.

And if there was agreement he'd get the card for $400 when it returned from PSA, then, yes, he'd have a legitimate complaint and I'd side with him.

But in the beginning and in the said, I don't know what agreements were involved and what specifically was said between the two, so I'm working with limited details.

And I'm also assuming that if it came back from PSA a trimmed reprint, the potential buyer would have refused to pay $400 for it. So I assume it's not a situation where he was willing to pay the $400 no matter what the PSA verdict.

[danmckee]

Buyer purchased the card from the website for $400.

Was sent the email in my original post

Buyer was not happy and didn't agree to anything

His money was refunded

card came back

seller offered it again to buyer for $700

Buyer ate crow and paid the extra but feels very mistreated and seller lost a very good customer for the future.

I don't see where there is any room for agreements in between.

Unless the buyer is on acid, agreed to drop the $400 and pay whatever extra and then decide to get mad about it and feel ripped off.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Buyer purchased the card from the website for $400.

Was sent the email in my original post

Buyer was not happy and didn't agree to anything

His money was refunded

card came back

seller offered it again to buyer for $700

Buyer ate crow and paid the extra but feels very mistreated and seller lost a very good customer for the future.

I don't see where there is any room for agreements in between.

Unless the buyer is on acid, agreed to drop the $400 and pay whatever extra and then decide to get mad about it and feel ripped off.

If he bought the card for 700 after the first sale was cancelled then that would be the buyers problem. Nobody forced him to buy the card.

[oldjudge]

Was the seller from Long Island?

[joeadcock]

It is unethical to make a deal with someone for a certain price, then unilaterally decide to change the rules after the fact in the seller's favor.

The buyer would then decide if he is willing to agree to this unethical treatment. Based Dan on what you write, he did agree to pay more, whatever the reason.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Buyer purchased the card from the website for $400.

Was sent the email in my original post

Buyer was not happy and didn't agree to anything

His money was refunded

card came back

seller offered it again to buyer for $700

Buyer ate crow and paid the extra but feels very mistreated and seller lost a very good customer for the future.

I don't see where there is any room for agreements in between.

Unless the buyer is on acid, agreed to drop the $400 and pay whatever extra and then decide to get mad about it and feel ripped off.

Dan,

Was the card originally priced at $400 because it was suspected of being altered or ungradeable? Or was the price increase solely due to the commoditization of the card? (i.e., it is now "slabbed")

[Texxxx]

Dan, I would like to know who the seller is so I can stay away from them. To me this is very bad business practice and if they will do it once then they have no problem doing it to anyone else in the future. If you dont want to post it here then you can PM me or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

My guess is the seller had the card out a while raw, didn't sell it, sent it off to be graded, and forgot to take it down. Careless, yeah, and should the seller go through with it, probably, but I don't think it rises to the level of unethical as it's probably an honest mistake if i am right.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My guess is the seller had the card out a while raw, didn't sell it, sent it off to be graded, and forgot to take it down. Careless, yeah, and should the seller go through with it, probably, but I don't think it rises to the level of unethical as it's probably an honest mistake if i am right.

Would agree that this is the most likely scenario.

[johnmh71]

I think it was a setup to guarantee a buyer at the $700 price tag IMO.

[mark evans]

I believe the seller should have gone through with the sale for $400. The buyer should offer to reimburse for grading fee.

[jhs5120]

I don't know if I would call it unethical.

If the card came back from PSA as a 1 (and for the sake of an argument) is now worth $300, is it unethical for the buyer to back out? No.

I sell on eBay and I certainly make mistakes every now and again. I can see where the seller is coming from.

Jason

[ls7plus]

The seller made an offer to sell a specific item at a given price, and the buyer accepted the offer before it was withdrawn. Thus, technically speaking, we have a binding contract, but alas, the breach of contract is one not worth pursuing due to the limited amount at stake. THIS IS WHERE HONOR ON THE PART OF THE SELLER SHOULD HAVE COME INTO PLAY, HOWEVER, IMHO. SELLER FAILED MISERABLY!

May all your collecting days be better than that one,

Larry

[smotan_02]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

I don't know if I would call it unethical.

If the card came back from PSA as a 1 (and for the sake of an argument) is now worth $300, is it unethical for the buyer to back out? No.

I sell on eBay and I certainly make mistakes every now and again. I can see where the seller is coming from.

Jason

I agree with the above. Doesnt seem like an ethical situation to me. The seller was honest with the buyer about the whereabouts of the card and promptly refunded the money. When the card returned from PSA, he offered him the card at fair market value (FMV because the buyer paid it). The seller did not price gouge or extort the buyer. He simply offered a product to him first. A product, that isn't necessary to survive (Well, at least to 99.9% of the population).

You can say that a PSA holder doesnt matter all day long, but it does matter. It matters as long as people are willing to pay an increased premium for a card sitting in a holder.

[T206DK]

Originally Posted by danmckee

The card was purchased by the buyer at $400. He wanted the card for $400. He wound up paying $700 and feels he was not treated properly but had to have the card. There was never a deal to cancel the original sale, the seller made that decision on his own.

one of the main reasons unscrupulous dealers keep doing what they are doing is because People " have to have that card". Just say NO to being ripped off on basebal cards for once. It won't hurt; matter of fact it feels pretty good. A bseball card is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Otherwise it is worthless other than the value of the paper it is printed on. Someone was willing to pay an extra $300 over the $400 he already spent and feels like he was treated badly , but yet he "had to have the card"....BooHoo