Meta: I thought we had a deal?

[Cougar Allen]

There's been a spate of threads lately that start out with something like, "I thought I had a deal with Mr. Fubar and then he sold the knife to someone else."

There seem to be a number of quite different situations behind those posts. Sometimes it's clear Mr. Fubar made a deal and then reneged on it: before he got to the post office someone else offered him more money and he decided to take it. Other times it seems someone "thought" he had a deal the way some guys "think" they have a girlfriend.

Some purely hypothetical possibilities (please do not take these as referring to any specific recent transaction):

Mr. Fubar offered a knife for $X, someone emailed saying he'd pay that and Mr. Fubar said great, we have a deal ... then the next day that someone emailed again saying an emergency came up and I had to spend all my money to deal with it, but I still want to go through with the deal; you'll just have to wait a while before I can pay you ... maybe a few weeks.... Then Mr. Fubar replied he'd sold the knife to someone else.

In that case it's clear a deal was made -- but who canceled it?

Another hypothetical situation: Two guys went back and forth trying to negotiate a trade, spent a lot of time negotiating, various delays happened, then one told the other he traded the knife to someone else. The other guy is outraged, he spent all that time and trouble negotiating and it was all for nothing and "*&@#%$@! I thought we had a deal!"

That case is like a guy who spends a lot of time and trouble trying to get a lady to marry him (or something) and then when it turns out she decides not to marry him (or something) after all -- he feels she's wasted his time and he gets mad at her. (I can just imagine the flame wars we would have here if this were a forum for complaints about romantic involvements....)

In many of the threads it isn't at all clear what happened -- sometimes because the two parties have different versions of the facts, but alarmingly often because neither one posts much of any (claimed) facts at all, just ranting about what a weasel or whiner the other guy is, and everybody and his hamster pounds on his keyboard and rants too, and nobody is telling exactly what happened and nobody is asking either. Someone posts "I thought we had a deal and he reneged" and that triggers off a flame war between the "anybody who'd renege on a deal is the scum of the earth" crowd and the "shut up and quit yer whining" crowd and nobody on either side seems to be interested in finding out what actually happened.

If your idea of finalizing a deal means "We have agreed on a deal so I'll send you the knife tomorrow (unless someone offers me more money any time before I drop the package into the mailbox and the gate swings shut behind it)" I think the members will want to know about it and avoid dealing with you.

On the other hand, if your idea of negotiating a deal means "I made you an offer and started a negotiation with you (so if you sell the knife to someone else before we have both admitted our negotiations are not going to be successful you're a reneger)" I think the members will want to avoid dealing with you, too.

I'd like to suggest everybody think long and hard about exactly what happened and whether it's something to post about before you post -- and if you do decide what happened is worth posting about, how about posting what happened? I mean, post the facts. If he's a low-down lying weasel people will be able to see that for themselves ... if what he did was really so low-down just explaining, calmly and clearly, what he did will ruin his reputation much more thoroughly than any amount of calling him a *&@#%$@ could ever do....

I'd like to make a suggestion to everyone who sees these threads, too -- think about whether you have anything to contribute before you contribute anything. I think sometimes people who were not involved in a transaction do have something to contribute, explaining (and sometimes working out) what the standards are when the standards don't seem to be clear to both the parties involved in a transaction. I think other times they don't.

 

[Elvislives]

Very well put Cougar. I've been concerned by the current number of threads dealing with this issue. The poster you reemphasized in one of those threads seems to be a new attitude I've not seen around here before, but see more of now. I've always taken the good people here at their word. I've yet to have a situation that did not end up mutually beneficial, even if it stumbled in the beginning. But the number of "iffy" deals begins to grow, and attitudes begin to show. Scary business that, when you are generally dealing with a faceless (and voiceless) entity.

When is a deal a deal? I've always made it clear when terms are agreed upon by asking the other party the simple question "Do we have a deal" after stating the terms as agreed. If I get confirmation from the other party, then the deal is now solidified, and binding in my opinion. If one party wants to change the terms, that becomes a renegotiation. Until agreement is reached, the original deal stands and is still binding.

I understand extenuating circumstances, and am human enough to make allowances or gracefully cancel a deal if I can't accept the change in terms. I've never posted a negative post because I have myself canceled deals with other parties who were unable to keep their end of the bargain, rather than let the issue drag out and create bad blood.

To me, if you even entertain the idea of making a deal then you are obligated to continue negotiations until that deal is complete, or dead, and such is clear to both parties. Negotiating deals with more than one party to see which one will pan out the best is deceitful, unless you clearly state to each person that you negotiate with the facts about what you are doing.

That isn't much different than auctioning, and I've always liked the fact that auctioning is frowned upon in these parts.

My never to be humble opinion...

Brandon

 

[Cougar Allen]

I said above:

On the other hand, if your idea of negotiating a deal means "I made you an offer and started a negotiation with you (so if you sell the knife to someone else before we have both admitted our negotiations are not going to be successful you're a reneger)" I think the members will want to avoid dealing with you ...

As you know I don't try to make the rules here; laws are made by governments and additional ethical standards are made by the market and all I do is moderate the discussion (well, occasionally I do post an opinion, but I try not to ... and even when I do I don't claim my opinion is worth more than anyone else's). I said I think the members will want to avoid dealing with anyone who thinks if he makes you an offer you are then obligated to negotiate exclusively with him until he admits negotiations have broken down, and I still think so. I think you'll find the law agrees with the members: an offer is not a contract; an offer isn't even a contract to negotiate exclusively with the person who makes the offer. All contracts require agreement by both parties.

Whether members would want to make the effort to dicker over price with someone if someone else is also dickering with him at the same time is not exactly the same question, and that could be worth some exploration.

 

[Cougar Allen]

Here's another hypothetical scenario -- no, let's make it two scenarios with different timelines:

Scenario #4

Octember 1st, 12:00 Remulak Central Gamma Ray Saving Time - Mr. Fubar posts a knife for $100

Octember 2nd 12:30 - Mr. Snafu emails offering $75

Octember 2nd 18:00 - Mr. Fubar replies offering to sell it for $90

Octember 3rd 9:00 - Mademoiselle From Armentiers sends: "$100 is a great price for that knife! I'll take it if no one else has beaten me to it."

Octember 3rd 14:30 - Mr. Snafu sends, "That's a deal -- I'll take it for $90."

Octember 3rd 16:00 - Mr. Fubar replies to Mr. Snafu, "Sorry, didn't hear from you and I need $um buck$ fast because the smoke leaked out of my electric carrot peeler so I sold it to Mademoiselle From Armentiers this morning."

Scenario #5
Same as #4 except it isn't until Octember 24th Mr. Snafu sends, "That's a deal -- I'll take it for $90."

Octember 24th 16:00 Mr. Fubar sends to Mr. Snafu - "Sorry, after two weeks with no word from you I sold it to Mademoiselle From Armentiers last week."

 

[Nakano 2]

Cougar, your opening post is not totally accurate. Although you have not actually stated which thread(s) you are referring to, I and many here surely know that you refer to a thread that I started recently here:

www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=threadid=187870

What I have stated there are ALL FACTS/ events that took place in my occurence with GLOCKMAN. Since my starting that thread, he has made NO post at all nor any e mails to me to answer to these statements I made. The only thing he did, both in prior e mails to me and on that thread was to dismiss the entire matter as quick as possible. And with the help of others, (was allowed) to derail the purpose of that thread onto another subject. That too is *CRYSTAL* clear.

Nakano

 

[Cougar Allen]

Originally posted by Cougar Allen
Some purely hypothetical possibilities (please do not take these as referring to any specific recent transaction):

I know it's never enough to post a disclaimer like that; somebody always takes it as commentary on a specific transaction anyway.... I really think it works better to confine discussion of specific transactions to the threads about them and keep the meta threads for meta discussion, discussing general concepts. Usually we only need to talk about facts on this forum; occasionally we need to talk about concepts, though, and when we do I think it usually works better to discuss concepts in a separate thread -- to put aside our heated feelings about a particular incident and the particular people involved in order to think about abstract concepts in an abstract way.

I posted a link to this thread in one of the threads about a specific transaction -- I hope the participants in that thread will read this one, maybe contribute to it, and take some clarified concepts back to that thread -- but I hope they take them back to that thread and don't move their argument about that specific transaction here.

Nakano, your thread was one of ... what, six or seven recently? I've lost count. It was one of the specific threads that inspired me to start this general discussion -- but none of those hypothetical examples are intended as thinly veiled comments on a specific transaction. If the shoe doesn't fit, that's because it was never intended to.

I choose my hypothetical situations to try to get discussion started, often putting forth extreme possibilities in the expectation people will start thinking about where they would draw the line between the extremes. For instance, I think some of us will see Scenarios 4 and 5 as very different -- okay, if you think those situations are totally different, how about if the delay were somewhere in between one day and three weeks? Where would you draw the line between these totally different situations? If you can't figure out where to draw the line, are they really as totally different as you thought they were?

That's one of the kinds of thinking I try to provoke with these meta threads ... there are others, too....

It's hard to do abstract thinking in the first place; it's even harder when you're in the middle of a very heated argument about something that seems much more concrete and personal and not abstract at all.

 

[shortgoth]

Ethics huh?

In a different thread, I posted this:

Personally Dan, I don't see you as "the bad guy". From what I've read in this forum, the majority of people on this forum have no retail or general business experience. If they did, they'd know the old and oft-repeated axiom: "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on".

but given that, as far as I can tell from what's been posted here, the two of you didn't even have a verbal contract. The seller of *any* merchandise is entitled to entertain offers from whoever they wish, until it's been sold (cash exchanged, not merely an e-mail or six exchanged), it's still for sale. Simple really.

As for all this "a man's word is his bond" "code of honour" stuff. It sounds good in theory, and worked great in the 1800's when everyone were gentlemen, but these days there are more people out to screw each other for a percentage than there are decent, honourable people. Fact of 21st century life.

Cougar then re-posted my comments because he expected me to go back and edit them. Why? I say what I mean and I mean what I say, to quote another old phrase. Granted, this got a few replies with people vowing to never deal with me, but that's no skin off my nose, I don't sell knives anyway, just buy. I'm sure these wonderful, honourable people hav never been guilty of the heinous crime of changing their minds/deciding to buy different merchandise/sell to a different person [delete as applicable].

But you know what, in the real world, merely entering a store doesn't mean you have to make a purchase. Enquiring as to the price of something doesn't mean you have to buy it. Going as far as haggling the price/discussing warranties/going over a finance plan/comparing one item to another/trying to get a discount/whatever also doesn't mean you've made a commitment. In the real world, nothing is yours until you've paid for it. Why do some people feel it should be any different dealing over the 'net? Exchanging e-mails is the foreplay (if you'll pardon the expression), the prelude, not the actual purchase. Until the money's in the sellers hands, whatever you're buying isn't yours.

It's a cut-and-dried, black-and-white issue as far as I'm concerned. I can see where Cougar's going with his hypotheticals, but as far as I'm concerned, none of these hypotheticals are a deal because no money has changed hands. Perhaps as far as net transactions are concerned, an e-mail/phone call saying "the money's on it's way" counts as the money changing hands, but merely deciding upon a price certainly does not.

To try to deal any other way means any seller must only deal with the very first person to contact them about whatever they're selling. And that's ridiculous.

Another oft-made point is that this isn't eBay. Very true. But the people making that point usually mean "this isn't an auction house, therefore you must sell to me becase I made the first offer, thus invalidating any higher offers you may subsequently recieve".

But maybe you should consider the other part of eBay regs, which states that a sale *is* a legally binding contract, and you have no choice in the matter and can't merely turn around and sell the item to someone else after the bidding has finished. This forum gives no such guarentees, nor does any seller on the forums.

 

[lifter4Him]

Danny, what you say is very true in the retail world but until fairly recently, wasn't the way things were here for a number of reasons. For the first year or two, until membership here passed around 6,000, there was a nice friendly atmosphere here and alot of good friendships made. Also most people weren't out to make a profit, they just wanted to either get their money back cause they needed some cash, or they just wanted to sell the knife to get a different one. Unfortunately, as BF got bigger, alot of that friendly, trusting atmosphere has gone and so have alot of the original members.

It is true that all you really have here is your honor and reputation. I believe the majority of threads lately about problems have been because of poor communication. When I post an knife for sale, I answer the emails in the order received, and let the emails that weren't first know what order they were received in. If the first email says I'll take it for your price, then it's his, regardless if the next email offers $50 more. If he's just made an offer, I'll reply and tell him he has 24 hours to answer or I'm moving to the next in line because others are interested. One of the problems here is sometimes a person will make an offer and then not check their email for 2 or 3 days, which is not fair on their part.

People, communicate more. If you're in a hurry, post in your ad that the first "I'll take it, gets it". If someone makes an offer and you either accept it or make a counteroffer, let them know they only have a specific time frame to reply. I haven't had to do this but Melvin Purvis suggests talking on the phone first and this seems to work for alot of people too. And make sure you both agree that the deal isn't finished till you both say you're happy with the deal if it's a trade. BF is a great place, but as Spark has said many times, it wasn't created for buying and selling, it is a discussion forum.

Dave

 

[fracmeister]

Ok, I'll confess to a "reneg" *sort of* and would like to know if I deserve a whipping for it. I offer knives FS/FT, get an offer I find acceptable and email the guy a yes, 2 of mine for one of his. My son is standing beside me and is very upset , having thought HE was going to get one of the knives (in retrospect he admits we never discussed it). So less than 60 seconds after saying yes, I say no, but could we talk about cash + one knife....

I feel bad backing out, but not so bad that I am losing sleep. I guess if it had been even a few hours later I'd have sided with the "a deal is a deal" in me, but now my son is feeling a lot better, I feel good and I hope I haven't pissed off one of our esteemed members....

 

[mikemck]

First of all, there is just no way to set rules and try to enforce them, and therefore it is up to each individual to determine for themselves what they will or will not do, and what they consider fair & ethical practices.

Having said that, if someone feels they have been screwed, they most certainly should post the facts of the matter here, and everyone can then decide for themselves how they feel about dealing with either party actually involved in the transaction.

Right is right, and wrong is wrong...it's that simple. It does not matter how many posts you have, who you know, who you have dealt with before, how long you have been here at bladeforums, or any other such nonsense.
Yes, there are extenuating circumstances, which is why all the facts need to be posted so that each person can make an informed decision, based on the facts.

Interestingly enough, written records, in the form of emails, are rarely posted. Why, I do not know. It's about like saying, "no, don't post the written record, just tell me in your own words, and I'll decide based on that alone". If there is written evidence of what was said, post it! This is especially important when there is a clear difference of opinion on what was written.

The GB&U is not for trying to pressure someone into doing what you think is right, or even what the majority thinks is right. If you have an issue, post the facts once it is resolved, and others can then make a decision based on those facts.

 

[JTurner]

The funny thing to me is the situations that cause the biggest stink and the nastiest posts are the ones that should have been settled with "OK...sorry, no big deal, maybe we can do business next time."

I mean are we all that hard up for money or knives that the second a person backs out of a deal we have to come running to GB&U. People back out of deals for various reasons, but most of the time it is not because they are dishonest a$$holes.

Sometimes it is best to just talk it out with the person you are dealing with and ask why they are doing what they are doing. Then you may be able to let it go.

Now..if someone has truly been dishonest -- then of course post it in GB&U. But please just take a step back before you go running to the forums to settle a personal disagreement.

JT

 

[Keith Montgomery]

As far as scenarios 4 and 5 are concerned, there is of course a big difference in whether I think Fubar did the right thing. Since Fubar made an offer to sell the knife for $90.00 he should have told Mademoiselle From Armentiers that he had to wait a reasonable amount of time for Snafu to get back to him and that if Snafu did not get back to him within that time frame, he would contact her and see if she was still interested in the knife. In my opinion Fubar should then have emailed Snafu and stated that he had received another offer and requested a reply as to whether he accepted the $90.00 price. In that email he should also have given Snafu a time limit to get back to him with an answer. When that time limit was up he should have sent one more email saying that if Snafu did not get back to him that day he was going to accept Mademoiselle From Armentiers offer. If Snafu gets back to him the next day, Fubar should sell the knife to him for the offered price of $90.00. If Snafu does not get back to him before the time limit is up then I feel that Fubar is well within his rights to sell to Mademoiselle From Armentiers. Fubar has done all he can to give Snafu the chance to accept his offer.

Now a problem can come up in the scenario above. What happens if Mademoiselle From Armentiers, when she makes her offer, says that she has to know in say 24 hours if her offer has been accepted, because the knife is going to be a gift for someone? What then should Snafu Do? I have my ideas on this one, but I would love to see what you guys think would be the right way to handle this problem.

 

[Northwind]

Shortgoth with interests like this : http://members.aol.com/djrs001/

Interests: bdsm, blades, blood, blues, blues/rock, chat, clubs, dean koontz,death, drink, england, fiction,f*ck it, gore, gothic,hatred, heavy metal, homicide, horror, insane, knives, local, metal, misanthropy, music, pain, portsmouth, pubs, punk, rock, s&m, sean hutson, sm,sociopath, splatterpunk, suspense, thriller, uk, vampire

It is really no wonder why you have such a twisted view of morality, much less business or honor. Best of luck to you in your hatred and sociopathic nature. NW

 

[Keith Montgomery]

Shortgoth, what you posted in that other thread is that it is not a deal until cash has changed hands. If that is your belief, then I still think you are a man with no ethics. It is a deal when both people agree that is a deal. When the cash changes hands has nothing to do with it. If you think it is OK to keep taking offers after you have agreed to sell something to someone, just because no money has changed hands that in itself says all that needs to be said.

You also posted that; "A man's worh is his bond" and "A code of honor" were something that worked in the 1800s, but not today. That is certainly the case if people are dealing with someone with your beliefs and ethics.

Hopefully you have a lot more honor than it sounds like you do.

 

[shortgoth]

Northwind, I'm touched, I really am. The thought that I pissed someone off so much that they took time and effort to go find some way of making a personal insult makes me feel all warm and fuzzy

Seriously, I was diagnosed as an antisocial sociopath when I was 14. It's a mental illness, like bipolar disorder. If you care to go look it up, you'll find out why I can sit here and laugh at your character assassination attempt. Although if you hadn't already twigged half of those interests by my nick, I pity your lact of mental capacity.

KWM and everyone else, "honour", "morals", "ethics", "right and wrong", these things are fluid and transient. What you consider morally right may not be what anyone else considers morally right. According to divine law as set out in the bible, you should go out and kill every witch in the world. I personally consider that morally wrong. I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees that Bin Laden's exploits were dishonourable, but to his point of view they were fine and just things to do.

I obviously made a mistake and thought this meta thread was for a discussion of morals and ethics, not personal attacks based on the very little of what you know about someone garnerned from a few pages of text.

But this only proves my above point: if someone annoyed me on a forum, I wouldn't have then trawled their website specificly looking for something to make them "look bad". I'd consider that dishonourable and morally wrong. Obviously Northwind doesn't.

 

[lifter4Him]

Shortgoth, if you can show me in the bible(NIV,NAS,LB) where it tells you to go kill witches, I'll give you a knife.

And with your views of honor and morals, do me a favor. Just bypass any for sale items I post.

 

[shortgoth]

Since I'm a few thousand miles away from you, I can't personally show you. However:

Exodus 22:18

Various Biblical translations render this verse as:

American Standard Version "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live."
The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices sorcery.
Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to live.
Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live.
New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment for witchcraft.
Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.

I have no idea what NIV, NAS, or LB stand for, but I think the above should cover it.

 

[AlecWire]

Seriously, I was diagnosed as an antisocial sociopath when I was 14. It's a mental illness, like bipolar disorder. If you care to go look it up, you'll find out why I can sit here and laugh at your character assassination attempt. Although if you hadn't already twigged half of those interests by my nick, I pity your lact of mental capacity.

Mate, if antisocial sociopaths could all claim to be mentally ill, there'd be a dramatic drop in the prison population. "Antisocial" and "Sociopath" describe a person, they don't diagnose.

As someone who lives with Bipolar Disorder every day of his life and still manages to not screw anyone in trades on the Forums or elsewhere and treat other people and their conventions and codes of honor with respect, I'd like to offer you this opportunity to remove your foot from your mouth.

Please don't compare plain old bad behavior to something that some of us live with and do our best to rise above. It's demeaning.

-Alec Wire

 

[mikemck]

Northwind, what was the point of posting that information? While I don't agree with shortgoth or his/her take on ethics and deals, personal attacks are bad form. Those interests or beliefs have no bearing on this discussion as far as I can see. I really can't understand why you would take the time to search out that information and then post it here.

As for the bible reference, it sure looks to be true, so I think he has got you there lifter4Him...

Everyone has their own idea of what is right and what is wrong, so really the only solution is to post here in GB&U if you feel you should warn others about another forumite. Again, this should not be a forum to be used to try and pressure someone into doing "the right thing".

 

[lifter4Him]

That'll teach me to post at 6am. I was of course talking about the New Testament but since I opened my big yap without being specific, email me your address SG and I will send you a knife. Since I didnt specify the new covenant, you are right.
NIV= New International Version
NAS=New American Standard
LB= Living Bible

Somedays, seems like I only open my mouth to switch feet.