Is there no honor in the sellers here?

Well technically it's a breach of contract, so... go ahead and sue him, I guess.

There really is nothing you can do. Look at it this way, at least he refunded you the money.

That's pretty mean of him.

What probably is worse of him is that the offer was less than $50 more than your offer, I'm sure. Not really sure if $50 is worth all that trouble and breaking your word.

Those e-checks take a while to clear and there's no guarantee that they will clear and from a sellers perspective it would look pretty shady to have someone (with a new account here on SF) send me an echeck say it was an accident and ask me to send them money so that they can send me money again. That whole thing just sounds dumb and shady as hell and screams of scam so I can't blame razuel for not doing it and he's in the right for it. As far as accepting a higher offer on HIS goods that's his right to do... if you hadn't mucked up the transaction in the first place the shoes would have been paid for in a timely manner and it probably would have been squared away pretty quickly... As a seller sitting around waiting for someone to pay you is shitty and if someone comes along looking for the same item and can put the money in his hand faster more power to him. don't go around asking for honor in sellers when you should first figure out how to be a competent buyer...

maybe I'm naive, but my take on it would have been that the buyer was asking if there was a way for the seller to cancel an e-check, not send funds from his own paypal account even with the "mucked up transaction," once there was an acceptance of selling price and funds were sent, the deal should have been solid; seller should not have been trolling for any other buyers at that point the delay in funds clearing through an echeck is frustrating, but as a seller, that's part of the game. If I accept a money order or personal check, I have to wait to receive funds.. no different here

I really think that you ought to re-read the initial post. From my interpretation of the post, the only thing the buyer wanted to do was cancel the eCheque and pay again. As someone's who just been paid with an eCheque, the way it works isn't great. However, until the funds have been cleared, NO money resides in the Seller's account, so if the eCheque payment is refunded, no money will leave the Seller's account. I don't usually get involved in posts, but I have to take issue with your comments about Sellers accepting higher offers. I have done a fair few transactions with Sellers on this site and I do not think that forums like Buying and Selling would exists if Sellers were to agree to a price and then change their minds if a higher price was offered. I believe eBay is the appropriate place for that. Places like Buying and Selling are based upon an "honour" system, that's why some Sellers get repeat business. What you are proposing contradicts this. My last comment is that people make mistakes, are you proposing also that if a Buyer makes a genuine mistake and then tries to correct it, they should not be given any benefit of the doubt? Everyone here has had a new account at one point. Having a new account cannot provide any conclusive evidence about a member's intention (be it good or bad). Just my 2 pence Clint

I guess I misread about the echeck cancellation and I'll conceed that point.
as far as trolling goes there's nothing that says that he was trolling for another buyer one may have just offered to buy it and in an unsure situation he closed the deal with what was a more concrete and profitable transaction which I don't see anything wrong in doing as the previous transaction seemed shaky from the start... I guess I just like to have a sure thing rather than taking a chance of completely missing a window of opportunity.

Just to play devil's advocate...

You got your money back, so I don't see the issue. Certainly it's unfortunate that you didn't get your shoes, but I doubt the seller is a brick&mortar store or a professional salesman. Though I don't necessarily agree with the way your seller handled it, he was probably just trying to get some items out of his closet quickly and needing some cash for spring. As such, waiting for an e-check to clear (which can be a pain because sometimes it doesn't clear at all!) might not be as desirable as a quick, immediate payment that will get the item out of his closet quickly. Anybody who has sold more than once or twice in the SF Sales Area knows that so many buyers act like they want an item, then disappear, or string you along, or suddenly pull out after they've already confirmed. So, often first cash-in-hand is the only assurance that your item is REALLY sold.

If he were stringing you along as per the return of your money, that would be a different story. But, he gave you back the money. As a buyer, I think the best way to view the SF Sales area is with a "If I win the item, outstanding... if not, no big deal" mentality... the PM/Email system isn't perfect, nor is the use of paypal. Sellers aren't doing this as their job, and pretty much everything is just a friendly transaction with little comittment, unless the person steals your money and won't return it. So, if you want outstanding customer service with a 100% guarantee that you will get the item you want, buy it at retail from a store.

As a seller, sometimes one has a tough decision to make as to what to do. A few months back, I had a situation where somebody PM'd me saying "Hi, I'd like your shoes. Can I have your paypal info?" I sent it to him and before he sent payment, another member who bought from me before and already knew my info sent a payment directly. Thus, I had a choice between going with the guy who actually emailed me first or the guy who paid me first. "Honor" probably would say go with the first contact, but after 25 times of having people email/confirm with me and then NEVER email me back, I went with the guy who paid first.

+1 on all of the above. I see both sides of this but, to be perfectly frank, I think the title of your thread is in poor taste as well as your public plea for "someone he respects to talk to him" like that is going to change the outcome of the transaction. It all seems like a thinly veiled attempt to sully the man's reputation just because you didn't get your way. I don't necessarily agree with what he did but I do understand it. Two wrongs still do not make a right.

There will be plenty of opportunities for you to find shoes if you're patient.

You're being a good Devil. As it's an Easter morning here and I'm still in bed, I'd like to continue the discussion a little while longer.

I think the nature of the "debate" is to get both sides of the argument. However, in the absence of the Seller's comments, I'm going to try and use the basis of what the Seller discussed. Naturally, I will have to make some assumptions. However, I will try and keep them to a minimum. I am not a lawyer, so I make no pretence about quoting laws I know nothing about.

From what I've read above. Seller offers an item, Potential Buyer makes an offer. Both parties agree and a "contract" is created.

Buyer pays in a certain way, then decides that they could pay in a faster manner. Contacts Seller to discuss new payment proposal.

Seller declines propsoal.

Seller then cancels payment and decides to sell to another Buyer.

Now, legally this may be complete proper and above board. However, has the Buyer no right to be upset, even though he got his money back?

Should places like "Buying and Selling" be viewed as vastly different to a Bricks and Mortar shop?

As far as I see it, the Buyer did his best to conclude his end of the transaction. I do not feel that the Seller did his best to accommodate the Buyer.

It would be nice to hear from some of the regular Sellers their thoughts on what the Buyer said happened. Thanks to DrDucky for his contribution to date.

As a buyer who's been let down by Sellers in the past, I have some sympathy for the Buyer.

As Seller who's been let down by Buyers in the past, I have some understanding for the Seller.

However, what consitutes a deal? If the Seller has a requirement for fast or hard cash, should they not stipulate this in the terms of the Sale, or is it for the Buyer to enquire about the potential of "hidden clauses"?

Clint

Good points, Clint.

Nevertheless, all this talk about "honor" and "gentlemanliness" and "contracts" sounds great in a 19th century Club sort of way, but the basic fact is that the seller can do what he wants with an item and a buyer is under no obligation to really buy something UNTIL money is sent and in hand. Money, it's initialization and its full receipt, is the only guarantor as far as I see it (and the failure to return money in a timely fashion is the only source of true complaint). I don't see why it always has to be the seller being the only "upright, gentlemanly" one. Buyers, in my experience, tend to be the more flakey ones because the PM/Email system doesn't require that they hold up their end of the bargain. It's the small-time seller who has to be the one with a closet full of unwanted stuff because he "honorably" said he'd hold the item for a buyer who flakes out.

Until the item is fully paid for (and that means cash in hand), a seller can refuse to sell it to you based on whatever reason he likes... he gets a better offer, he doesn't like your name or personal appearance, or just because he doesn't like that your email address has a number in it or something. Maybe he doesn't want to sell because you live in Las Vegas and for religious reasons he's opposed to shipping there. Likewise, a buyer can flake out for whatever reason he wants... that is... UNTIL money is confirmed. I'm not saying this is a GOOD thing... but it's just the way it is.

I agree that there SHOULD be trust and uprightness in our agreements, but money really is the only thing that holds us to our word. So, as long as you get your payment refunded, I don't see why we should whine about it. I've often lost items I wanted to buy here on SF, some for legitimate reasons (too slow on the PM), some for reasons I felt were not legitimate. BUT, that's just the way things are...

Hi, thanks for your reply. I quickly decided to get up and get the dinner on!!!

You've given me some food for thought. Naturally, there isn't anything in your last post that you've said that I can (or would want to) take issue with.

However, as someone who tries to adopt a serious appropriate to buying, I would be really interested to hear from any other Sellers who adopt the viewpoint that you put forward above.

Thanks for the debate and I would like to state that I'm not trying to upset anyone, I just feel a little emotional regarding people trying to set standards and maintain them. I guess in this World, it's something that I have to deal with.

Regards

Clint

Most of what Rach says may be true, but only because we allow it to be or lack the willingness to enforce what is right. I'm no lawyer, but from what I understand of the law, if Trojanman would choose to take this to court, he would probably win. He made a commitment to buy, the seller accepted his terms when he sent his Paypal address for payment (and again when he chose not to have the buyer change his method of payment) thereby creating a contract. He breached the contract when he unilaterally chose to cancel the sale because he got a better offer. No one is going to go to court over this! However, when we condone it we are saying that our word means nothing on this board. I don't buy, or sell, a great deal here (at least in comparison with others), but when I do buy, I do it because I feel I can trust (in general) the other members to do what is right, and to me that means sticking to your word, your commitments. I have agreed to sell items and, while awaiting payment, been offered more. I have turned the later offers down, not because I was concerned the initial buyer might not pay, but because I committed to the first buyer. If he failed to pay, its his credibility that's shot, not mine. He goes to the list of people I don't deal with. I sell here more than buy and I feel that as a seller I have the advantage over the buyer in most instances. Yes, I may wind up with items that sit in the closet because a buyer failed to follow through, but I still have the item and can sell it further down the line. I have it because I'm not shipping it until the money is in hand. The buyer, on the other hand, is required to send me his money with only my word (and the somewhat dubious promise from Paypal that they'll make sure I live up to my word) that he will ever see what he has paid for. As soon his trust in that promise is gone, this forum is dust. When sellers start to say its alright to back out of their commitments because they got a better offer, then buyers start to wonder what else they feel its alright to back out of (shipping cost more than I thought so I won't send your item until you send me more money). If your word as a seller (or buyer for that matter) doesn't mean anything here, you might as well go somewhere else. And, when we agree with and condone sellers who fail to live up to their commitments, we become suspect as well! Oh, and by the way Trojanman, your thread title unjustly throws the vast majority of honest sellers on this forum under the bus with the twerp who backed out of your sale. To them you owe an apology. Also, I'd like to know the offenders name (if only by PM) so I can add him to my "don't deal with " list.