Update: Need Advice on A Transaction"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Problem is, we'll never know if the buyer did receive the knives or not. It's just a big mess.

Also, you stated above and I quote "For me - no deals with anyone with less than lots of good feedback". What would that feedback number be in your mind, considering you have only 2?
 
HappyDaddy said:
Simple really - It's the seller's responsibility to get the knives to the buyer. If they don't get to the buyer (for any reason) and the seller keeps the buyer's money, he's a thief.
Click to expand...

You really should look up the definition of "theft." Theft is a crime. Not getting the goods to someone, taken alone, is not a crime. Calling someone a thief when you cannot prove they are a thief is wrong.
 
knifehunt said:
Problem is, we'll never know if the buyer did receive the knives or not. It's just a big mess.

Also, you stated above and I quote "For me - no deals with anyone with less than lots of good feedback". What would that feedback number be in your mind, considering you have only 2?
Click to expand...

If I were a seller, I'd not care as much about the feedback of a buyer, since I'd require PayPal for payment. But, I've never sold a knife and am more likely to be a buyer. I'd care much more about the feedback of a seller, even though I'd use PayPal Goods. I figure the chances of a product being exactly what I expect (really the only consideration as a buyer) are better with a seller with lots of good feedback. It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone didn't want to sell me a knife because I have little feedback. No biggie.
 
Using PP certainly would have eliminated a lot of the problems-certainty of money and protection for buyer, but it still would not protect the seller if the buyer lies about not getting what he ordered. The buyer in that case would get the PP refund + the knives.

These 2 couldn't have made more mistakes if they tried, from the type of payment, sending out before cleared payment, poor packaging, sending through a 3rd party, poor effort on resolution. All that can be said for sure is that their is a thief somewhere(seller, USPS,3rd party receiver, or buyer). For the exchanges to work properly you need trust and honesty..
 
Last edited:
HappyDaddy said:
It's been a weird one since jump street. I have no confidence at all that we'll ever know the truth. For me - no deals with anyone with less than lots of good feedback.
Click to expand...

Says the guy with a feedback rating of 2. Hope the people you try to deal with feel this way, too. ;)
 
HappyDaddy said:
If I were a seller, I'd not care as much about the feedback of a buyer, since I'd require PayPal for payment. But, I've never sold a knife and am more likely to be a buyer. I'd care much more about the feedback of a seller, even though I'd use PayPal Goods. I figure the chances of a product being exactly what I expect (really the only consideration as a buyer) are better with a seller with lots of good feedback. It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if someone didn't want to sell me a knife because I have little feedback. No biggie.
Click to expand...

That's pretty one way...
 
Thomas Linton said:
You really should look up the definition of "theft." Theft is a crime. Not getting the goods to someone, taken alone, is not a crime. Calling someone a thief when you cannot prove they are a thief is wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't call anyone in particular a thief. I said that if a seller keeps a buyer's money without delivering the goods, he's a thief. It's a word in common usage beyond the technically legal usage. I can be as pedantic as you want to get. I've been a prosecutor and public defender (admittedly its been 25 years since I did either), so I'm pretty familiar with the concept. So, you know, save your crap for someone who might be impressed.
 
Last edited:
knifehunt said:
That's just not right.
Click to expand...

It's neither right nor wrong. It's just my perspective. I'd care a lot more about the feedback of someone whom I was trusting to send me what he said he was sending me than I would the feedback of someone who was sending me money through PayPal. Seems logical to me, but we're all free to do our deals in whatever way makes us comfortable.
 
HappyDaddy said:
It's neither right nor wrong. It's just my perspective. I'd care a lot more about the feedback of someone whom I was trusting to send me what he said he was sending me than I would the feedback of someone who was sending me money through PayPal. Seems logical to me, but we're all free to do our deals in whatever way makes us comfortable.
Click to expand...

A buyer can screw you using paypal as easy as as the seller can.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Not saying it's impossible, but I'd be interested in the scenario you're thinking of.
Click to expand...

It's been done time and time again, but I can't say on the open forum to give people some bad ideas. There's enough problems without buyers ripping people off, lol.
 
knifehunt said:
It's been done time and time again, but I can't say on the open forum to give people some bad ideas. There's enough problems without buyers ripping people off, lol.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can't think of a scenario that wouldn't require PayPal siding with a buyer in a dispute, a pretty high bar to meet, and one that would have required provable wrongdoing on my part. Perhaps there are other ways of which I'm happily ignorant. As you say, best to keep those under wraps.
 
HappyDaddy said:
Fair enough. I can't think of a scenario that wouldn't require PayPal siding with a buyer in a dispute, a pretty high bar to meet, and one that would have required provable wrongdoing on my part. Perhaps there are other ways of which I'm happily ignorant. As you say, best to keep those under wraps.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the thieves know all the tricks. I have been trying to deal with people who I've had multiple deals with, I think it cuts down on the chances of getting in a bad situation.
 
ooitzoo said:
EDIT: the fact that neither party seems terribly interested in coming on here to work toward a solution suggests they've either resolved it privately or something isn't kosher.
Click to expand...

Eschewing the Peanut Gallery in the interim is not necessarily indicative of a lack of interest in (re)solution. Some might even consider it wise.

~ P.
 
Peter Hartwig said:
Using PP certainly would have eliminated a lot of the problems-certainty of money and protection for buyer, but it still would not protect the seller if the buyer lies about not getting what he ordered. The buyer in that case would get the PP refund + the knives.

These 2 couldn't have made more mistakes if they tried, from the type of payment, sending out before cleared payment, poor packaging, sending through a 3rd party, poor effort on resolution. All that can be said for sure is that their is a thief somewhere(seller, USPS,3rd party receiver, or buyer). For the exchanges to work properly you need trust and honesty..
Click to expand...

^^^
Well stated, Peter. :thumbup: :thumbup:


HappyDaddy said:
I didn't call anyone in particular a thief. I said that if a seller keeps a buyer's money without delivering the goods, he's a thief. It's a word in common usage beyond the technically legal usage. I can be as pedantic as you want to get. I've been a prosecutor and public defender (admittedly its been 25 years since I did either), so I'm pretty familiar with the concept. So, you know, save your crap for someone who might be impressed.
Click to expand...

You should consider, practicing what you preach. Factor this, along with your very own, self serving feedback double standard: I suggest, that maybe you should consider going back to the drawing board, & contemplate doing some introspection, regarding the twisted arguments that you're attempting (without much success), to make here.

BTW- where do you get off, thinking you're an authority figure here; ready to brand the seller, guilty, as a lying a thief, regardless of the fact, that you (or anyone else here for that matter), will never be able to prove factually, if indeed, the seller received the knives...OR NOT! :thumbdn:


There are so many factor's of this transaction, which are based solely on hypotheticals, & what if's. Once we find out the status of this cashier's check (which may/or may not, provide some credibility for the buyer); it still will not prove that the seller, is in fact lying, or if the buyer, is telling the truth! ;)
 
Kelama - Where to begin... If you read all of what I've said in this thread you'll see that I have repeatedly said that the facts of this particular transaction are, and will likely remain, inscrutable. The comment that seems to have your panties bunched is a general one regarding a situation where a seller fails to get items to a buyer and refuses to refund the buyers money. In those circumstances it is my opinion that the seller is a thief, crook, n'er-do-well, scammer, bad guy... Pick your adjective. Whether those facts apply to our seller here, only he and the buyer know.

Regarding my position on feedback, it is what it is. I'd be very skeptical about buying from someone with little feedback, and less concerned about dealing with a buyer with little feedback - for the reasons I stated. I've done two transactions here. I probably wouldn't buy from me, unless other factors outweighed my lack of feedback. That's all the introspection you're going to get.

I haven't claimed expertise in anything aside from knowing the legal definition of "theft." Being a lawyer for 30+ years, including several prosecuting and defending theft cases, justifies that claim in my mind. Perhaps you disagree. Ok by me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top