BST etiquette am I wrong

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not what you said? The messages were already posted. You said "I will see you in court. I give you my word on that". Are you alleging the messages are doctored? Looks like I had it right, you're just blatantly telling obvious lies.

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

[Cody77]

Do as you please, but you have absolutely no basis for legal action at all. There is no binding contract. Even if I had treated you unfairly, which I did not, the only way you have any case is if I took your money, which I didn’t, and didn’t give you the item in that exchange. Without any exchange or loss on your part, there are no legal ramifications withstanding. You simply didn’t get your way and are throwing a temper tantrum. Honestly, I’m glad you didn’t respond and didn’t get the item, which has already been shipped to the buyer, because I don’t want any connection to you at all. This entire thing is absurd and every judge in this country would laugh you out of the courtroom. I wish you luck on your hunt for another Jackson, I am for real!

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

There was another thread where it was discussed ad nauseum about whether or not just saying "I'll take it" guarantees the right to buy something. I don't think any agreement was reached there, but there were plenty of opinions saying that legally, it doesn't.

In your case, the seller was already contacting others when you said you would take it if still available. If he had already messaged others who had directly contacted him about agreeing to terms, I don't see why he would have to drop that and just accept your offer. If he were selling at a show and someone else was discussing buying a card with him and you just walked over and said "I'll take it", I would consider that rude and inappropriate. I'm not sure it's different just because this happened online.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

Quoting the wrong person? You claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

It is, in fact, literally what you said. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown.

Want to address your blatant lie? I don't care about who is or is not a lawyer or this other crap. I never claimed anything about layers of confirmation whatsoever in any direction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Quoting the wrong person? You claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

It is, in fact, literally what you said. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown.

Want to address your blatant lie? I don't care about who is or is not a lawyer or this other crap. I never claimed anything about layers of confirmation whatsoever in any direction.

You should be flattered someone thinks you're a lawyer.

[bigfanNY]

But again it is not what I said. I Said I will see you in court. I give you my word on that. Get it? A promise not a threat. You can have last word I am done..

[Rich Klein]

When a market is hot, and the sports card market is very hot right now does make for interesting conversations.

While not as hot as during covid, I can tell you (with the caveat that this is mostly for newer cards) that the world is more like 1988-91 than than 2008-11.

And when markets are that hot and a popular item is posted at a fair price there will be competition for said item.

From reading this thread I believe the seller should have posted after the "I'll Take it" post that as noted he is working with people who contacted him first and he will get back to JS if they pass on said item

And I don't know about you but calling someone a low life and saying you'll see them in court implies future behavior. It will not come to pass for me, but I would not want to do business with someone acting that way.

Sounds like Peter is about to pick up some new clients as well.

Regards
Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Sounds like Peter is about to pick up some new clients as well.

Regards
Rich

Haha. The only things I have ever done in this space are to help some collectors out with their issues for no charge.

[SyrNy1960]

I think once something is posted for sale on the B/S/T, then all communications should only be on the B/S/T. Posting on B/S/T, then using other sources to communicate with others, while not updating the B/S/T post, can definitely confuse things, as shown in this situation.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

But again it is not what I said. I Said I will see you in court. I give you my word on that. Get it? A promise not a threat. You can have last word I am done..

I won't have the last word, you will in court. Because your case is totally legitimate and real and you will be taking this excellent court to case where you will surely win and be vindicated.

Again, you claimed in 86 "I 100% agree with you saying I will see you in court sounds like a threat. But not what I said."

You admit right there it sounds like a threat, but it is not because it is "not what I said".

However, It is, in fact, literally what you said. Verbatim. Word for word. "I will see you in court". The message was already shown where you did this.

In retrospect, OP was obviously correct to wrap up with the earlier responders rather than making a deal with the guy who responded to the situation by lying, throwing a fit, issuing threats, and allegedly-and-totally-actually suing in court over a tiny and petty dispute over who should get first dibs. Can't wait to see the judge's ruling in court, which will definitely happen.

[Carter08]

No one should be so hurt over this. Seller was trying to sell. A bunch of people wanted to give him their money. He went with someone that gave it quickly. Semi-uncool of someone said I’ll take it and he didn’t go that route. Perhaps. Lesson learned though - if it’s a hot item say I’ll take it and get the seller paid.

[PhillyFan1883]

I would love to be in attendance if there ever was a trial. There will be scenes as captivating as the movie "A Few Good Men" ----that I am sure of.

Joe Jackson always entangled in controversy.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

My vote for best post in the thread. I will also be waiting to see court papers to settle the this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

We don't even know Cody's full name do we? No, he's not suing him. And much as I think he was in the right here at least until the aftermath, he would certainly lose. There was no contract to be breached.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

[bigfanNY]

As I said I will update down the road.