Forum Ethics - Was I wrong? - Page 3

The refund cancels any agreement. There was no harm done, the buyer needs to walk away. what does he want to happen? for you to buy a new suit and send it to him? obviously no.

I guess the buyer has the right to post something and say "seller is soooo flaky" if he so desires, but that's about it.

Except that he didn't actually revoke, did he?

The proper thing to do would have been to message the buyer once the decision was made to revoke the offer, to let him know. Seller is in the wrong.

I think we've found the scorned would-be buyer!

Nope. I'm just amused at the disconnect between peoples' perceptions and how you're actually supposed to deal.

Just for that, you should have kept his money and sold it on ebay.

JK, starting a thread like this only opens the way up for idiots to reply & potentially make you doubt yourself. You know you did the right thing.

Just to say, this exactly proves the benefit of good communications during the process and goes back to what I was saying in my previous pst.

I strongly suspect most sellers absolutely don't mind waiting a short while for payment, if they know the buyer is serious and has kept them informed. What's a bit unsettling is when a seller just doesn't know if the buyer has agreed to a deal and not kept them in the loop.

Canberraman was, as he said, completely upfront and I feel totally reassured he's genuinely interested, so I have no reason to worry. This means that I'm happy to wait and don't feel need to pester him. An great example of good communication.

It doesn't mean LOTS of PMs - just that when one is sent (from either buyer or seller), it should be clear and honest. I'd say again, given the more usual level of internet chatter, it's remarkable how good members of this forum are at this and why it's a pleasure buying & selling here.

OP did nothing wrong, imo. I wouldn't have bothered to post, except I felt the need to point out that -- as enriching as the pink cashmere tie thread was -- posting sound bites from first year contract law class doesn't really answer helpfully the OP's question about forum ethics . . .

Ya I learnt my lesson that day. Strangly enough they let me cancel the MO for a fee(can you believe I work for that bank aswell) and still not to this day has the MO been cashed.

Still wish that I could have got those as I have not bothered to get a similar pair in the same color. Sigh.

+1. That's been my experience. I don't normally have a lot of spending money unless it's quickly after a paycheck. I've only bought maybe 5-6 items on the B&S, but every single time I have, I've said "I would really like this, but I can't pay til Friday, can you wait until then?" and I think every time they've been fine with that, maybe once they said they couldn't wait that long and we both went our own ways. Communication is the #1 most important part.

I suppose you missed the subsequent post where I said that I was amused at the disconnect between forum "ethics" and the standard rules of real-life dealing.

I do also feel that the right thing to do would be to inform the buyer after deciding to revoke the offer.

as someone who sells on the forum, you were absolutely right. too many times there are assumptions that you will just sit there and wait forever, never truly knowing if someone is going to change their mind. you have to get your money sooner rather than later. this is something i RARELY run into but it has happened and can be frustrating

Extremely frustrating. I've held onto a couple of high-dollar items for would-be buyers, only to have them back out or never respond again. While you're waiting, the other interest evaporates. Relisting an item here never garners the same response as the initial offering -- too many people don't check the thread a second time.

If you want an item, you should pay for it the same day you PM, unless you make arrangements otherwise, IMO.

Does the buyer have no responsibility in this transaction? Is a buyer even a buyer unless they've paid for the merchandise?

I feel that this entire thread is an enormous amount of over-analyzing a very clear cut situation. If you have interest in an item, pay for it or properly communicate your intentions to buyer. As both a frequent buyer and seller on this forum and via eBay and similar platforms, I would expect nothing less on either side of the coin.

Here's what happened:

Seller advertises for $450.

Buyer offers $300.

Seller makes a counter offer.

Seller offers to sell for $300.

Most people (and the buyer, I'm sure) would see the final offer to sell for $300 as accepting the buyer's initial offer. The buyer probably saw it as his offer being accepted, him tendering payment, and having it returned with, "I've changed my mind."

To be pedantic, the counter offer effectively declined the initial offer, and so this isn't the case. However, the final offer by the seller was in fact an offer, and the offer remained open because it wasn't revoked.

To avoid this, the seller could have made the offer, "I'll sell it to you for $300 if you paypal it within 24 hours," or, "I'll sell it to you if no one buys it before you pay for it..."

This is correct. However, even if an offer is not revoked, an offer lapses after a reasonable time has passed. The OP made the offer at 4PM Wednesday. The OP considered the offer moot at 1PM Thursday. So the question here is whether 21 hours constitutes a "reasonable time."

Under most other circumstances, the answer would probably be no. But in light of the customs of this forum and in the course of dealing, there is a good argument that the passage of 21 hours is a reasonable amount of time after which an offer can be considered lapsed. This is especially since users can track other users' logins.

Anyhow, there is not much to be debated here, since most people agree the OP acted reasonably. I'm just taking the opportunity to review contract law for the bar exam.