30 Comments

remember that the user counter offered...and then i created my own thread...

as per ASBs post:
]http//ho…=29

there was not that of an agreement reached because of this and furthered by not actually being agreed...
...there was some unjust in the thread, however not created by myself.

Also please note the 1minutes difference as well between the two potential 'agreements' and of course i can deal with whom i wish...

Such a short space of time between both offers and I know it should all be looked upon but the seller was looking at the easiest sell for himself, and saving him money re postage and packaging costs aswell.

I have dealt with awoodhall a few times and have always found him pleasant and fair in any of his trades or sales. He did contact a mod aswell to take the final decision and went with this?

I understand other person losing out would be upset.

I hope it all gets sorted and no bad slating of individuals is done

No, I agree with ascottishbloke on this one...

You are correct, agreeing upon a trade and then going back on it is not permitted:


Rules

(11) Offer and acceptance of trade or sale MUST be posted in relevant … (11) Offer and acceptance of trade or sale MUST be posted in relevant threads. Private Messages are for personal details only, you must NOT deal by PM.(12) Once an offer has been made and accepted the trade should be considered final. Sellers who accept an offer and subsequently accept a higher offer from another member, may be suspended from trading. On the flip side, members who submit or accept an offer and subsequently pull out for any reason, will be suspended from trading for at LEAST one day.



HOWEVER, in this instance at no point did awoodhall2003 accept an offer. He said he'd be willing to sell for £4. bob100 then said "ok deal £4, taking to pm". If you read the thread carefully, you will see that awoodhall2003 never agreed to this and thus wasn't breaking the rules.

jonnyq;5213575

so you had two deals going on?he said £3 - then you made a counter offer … so you had two deals going on?he said £3 - then you made a counter offer o£4 - he accepted - but you went back on your wordhow much more convoluted do you wish to make it?



No. awoodhall2003 said he was looking for £4. At no point did he say "accepted" or anything along those lines. He simply said "I'm looking for £4".

What you're suggesting is similar to a user making a post saying "I have X for sale for £Y" and someone saying "I'll take it" being a contract. However, it requires the seller to come back again and say, "yes, that's fine".

duckmagicuk2;5213596

No, I agree with ascottishbloke on this one...You are correct, agreeing … No, I agree with ascottishbloke on this one...You are correct, agreeing upon a trade and then going back on it is not permitted:HOWEVER, in this instance at no point did awoodhall2003 accept an offer. He said he'd be willing to sell for £4. bob100 then said "ok deal £4, taking to pm". If you read the thread carefully, you will see that awoodhall2003 never agreed to this and thus wasn't breaking the rules.




All cleared up now

jonnyq;5213647

awoodhall2003 was making the offer - bob accepted it - then he decided … awoodhall2003 was making the offer - bob accepted it - then he decided not to go ahead with itso is this a case of further acceptance then? - according to hukd



Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:

Buyer: I want this.
Seller: I have it. £10 please.
Buyer: Accepted.

But when an offer from a seller is countered, I think it changes the structure a little... I think things should then run like this:

Buyer: I want this.
Seller: I have it. £10 please.
Buyer: How about £5?
Seller: No.
Buyer: OK, £10.
Seller: Accepted

It's a bit of an odd situation. I can see your point, but the seller has effectively withdrawn their offer when they turn-down a haggle and the process needs to start again.

nope...you say you know law jonnyq...an advert what is it? an Invitation to treat i believe?

munnski;5213566

Such a short space of time between both offers and I know it should all … Such a short space of time between both offers and I know it should all be looked upon but the seller was looking at the easiest sell for himself, and saving him money re postage and packaging costs aswell.I have dealt with awoodhall a few times and have always found him pleasant and fair in any of his trades or sales. He did contact a mod aswell to take the final decision and went with this? I understand other person losing out would be upset.I hope it all gets sorted and no bad slating of individuals is done


Many thanks for your kind words, much appreciated.


duckmagicuk2;5213725

Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want … Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: Accepted.But when an offer from a seller is countered, I think it changes the structure a little... I think things should then run like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: How about £5?Seller: No.Buyer: OK, £10.Seller: AcceptedIt's a bit of an odd situation. I can see your point, but the seller has effectively withdrawn their offer when they turn-down a haggle and the process needs to start again.


This is what i thought, i have apologised to bob, the party with the wanted thread, as i offered it originally to help the guy out. But for £3 it did not warrant a trip to send it, and thus although he did then accept, it wasnt not an agreement, but consitutes that of an offer to purchase my item.

Ironic that it's a book on law, eh? :-D

I agree with both both mods that technically the deal was not agreed. But I do think this was a case of unethical trading, or at least one with not enough ethical consideration.

This is one of those cases that ultimately come down to an individual's sense of what is proper and decent trading behaviour - or 'form' as the OP puts it. I accept the decision - and do see it from all sides - but I would have hoped for a more satisfactory resolution based on values as well as rules.

tricky one this, maybe a rule a rule should be in place to stop negotiationsons or offers of items that have an active thread open being made in any other thread. perhaps a link to the active thread and negotiations only being only allowed in there, not over 2 diff threads.

duckmagicuk2;5213775

Ironic that it's a book on law, eh? :-D


Funny that isnt it? But then i guess thus why when an event arises its jumped upon even more? :thumbsup:

Liddle ol' me;5213799

I agree with both both mods that technically the deal was not agreed. … I agree with both both mods that technically the deal was not agreed. But I do think this was a case of unethical trading, or at least one with not enough ethical consideration. This is one of those cases that ultimately come down to an individual's sense of what is proper and decent trading behaviour - or 'form' as the OP puts it. I accept the decision - and do see it from all sides - but I would have hoped for a more satisfactory resolution based on values as well as rules.


Funnily enough i actually agree with you...as the first thing i done when bob PMed me saying "send details over for payment" just after i had just sent mutoo my details, i asked for a mod to have a look and give some clarification, especially on who should get it, and how to proceed.
But the thing is now im in a bit of limbo...

duckmagicuk2;5213725

Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want … Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: Accepted.But when an offer from a seller is countered, I think it changes the structure a little... I think things should then run like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: How about £5?Seller: No.Buyer: OK, £10.Seller: AcceptedIt's a bit of an odd situation. I can see your point, but the seller has effectively withdrawn their offer when they turn-down a haggle and the process needs to start again.



So if i start a thread and state my prices of £10 for an item and then you offer £8, i reject it, then you come with a £10 offer i can still refuse the offer even though i have set the asking at £10? Even if someone agrees asking price, i still don't have to sell.

According to this, surely i could just hold an auction on here then for the highest bidder, as i can refuse to sell even if someone has met asking price

ants97;5213827

tricky one this, maybe a rule a rule should be in place to stop … tricky one this, maybe a rule a rule should be in place to stop negotiationsons or offers of items that have an active thread open being made in any other thread. perhaps a link to the active thread and negotiations only being only allowed in there, not over 2 diff threads.



but my thread was created after the counter offer, thus creating the difficulty, as it was not an active thread before hand. The reason for the thread was so that I didnt thread spoil bobs thread.

jonnyq;5213881

with respect duckmagicBob - £3?AW - £4 as a counter offer Bob - okay £4 Th … with respect duckmagicBob - £3?AW - £4 as a counter offer Bob - okay £4 The counter offer is treated as a new offer - acceptance happened there - hukd may require AW to say 'okay' The fact awoodhall2003 spun the legal jargon - and not accurately - indicates he knows it is not sound - it may be within the rules of hukd but he needs to brush up on his contract law even if we draw a line under the legal aspect, it is clearly poor form and you should have exercised some patience rather than just leaving bob hanging



hanging? the response was quick...from the time of me first inviting the user to the sale, to the two 'potential' agreements was in a space less then 15-20mins i believe...damn i know some people take hours to respond...i even had a guy who took over 2 days to respond to a counter of mine...so i dont think you cna say that it was a case of hanging...either way you have just had this matter clarified by two moderators now...

duckmagicuk2;5213725

Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want … Well, normally in a WANTED thread it'd work like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: Accepted.But when an offer from a seller is countered, I think it changes the structure a little... I think things should then run like this:Buyer: I want this.Seller: I have it. £10 please.Buyer: How about £5?Seller: No.Buyer: OK, £10.Seller: AcceptedIt's a bit of an odd situation. I can see your point, but the seller has effectively withdrawn their offer when they turn-down a haggle and the process needs to start again.



But actually the case didn't go like your second example. It was actually like this:

Buyer: I want this.
Seller: I have it. £4 please.
Buyer: How about £3?
Seller: No. I want £4
Buyer: OK, £4. Deal.

Yes, the seller did not say "accepted", but he clearly made the offer for £4 (in fact he offered it twice). Since he was already in negotiations with the buyer for the item, good form would suggest he wait a reasonable time for an answer, rather than immediately starting another thread in the hope of getting the third party who had shown an interest in the thread by hijacking.

Not rule breaking but certainly bad form imo and not what ought to be....

awoodhall2003;5213890

but my thread was created after the counter offer, thus creating the … but my thread was created after the counter offer, thus creating the difficulty, as it was not an active thread before hand. The reason for the thread was so that I didnt thread spoil bobs thread.



That's the unethical bit. Before even waiting for an answer, you started a new thread in the hope of entering separate negotiations with a third party.

You didn't feel it necessary to give bob a chance to respond?

surely then we could argue semantics though?

Liddle ol' me;5214003

That's the unethical bit. Before even waiting for an answer, you started … That's the unethical bit. Before even waiting for an answer, you started a new thread in the hope of entering separate negotiations with a third party. You didn't feel it necessary to give bob a chance to respond?



he had made his counter offer. i STATED i was after £4.

awoodhall2003;5214024

he had made his counter offer. i STATED i was after £4.



Yes, yes, as I said, technically you didn't break any rules. But I think it is clear to all that this 'statement' was a continuation of the original offer.

Do you see where the ethical dilemma lies here? I think you do. And I think your subsequent apologies to Bob in the thread showed that you did at the time also. This was a case of money being more important to you than ethics imo.

jonnyq;5214033

in general i meant - you left him hanging because you set up another … in general i meant - you left him hanging because you set up another thread and that was the unfair part hukd may have additional rules but that is not the same as the legal rules in contract - i hope you can understand the distinction


I agree...i said so myself theyre different. i was comparing them though to beign with.

Liddle ol' me;5214096

Yes, yes, as I said, technically you didn't break any rules. But I think … Yes, yes, as I said, technically you didn't break any rules. But I think it is clear to all that this 'statement' was a continuation of the original offer. Do you see where the ethical dilemma lies here? I think you do. And I think your subsequent apologies to Bob in the thread showed that you did at the time also. This was a case of money being more important to you than ethics imo.


Again funnily enough i do agree...as i was seeking to help bob...and its not really just the money, it was the fact that for £3, then after postage really doesnt warrant a post office trip (when ive got nothing else to send) and thus why i apologised to bob.
This was my major 'arguement' if you like, that i personally had not broken any rules.
I agree though that there could be the consideration of ethics, but again i didnt do it maliciously, and i never meant to 'screw' over any party involved...

awoodhall2003;5214285

Again funnily enough i do agree...as i was seeking to help bob...and its … Again funnily enough i do agree...as i was seeking to help bob...and its not really just the money, it was the fact that for £3, then after postage really doesnt warrant a post office trip (when ive got nothing else to send) and thus why i apologised to bob.This was my major 'arguement' if you like, that i personally had not broken any rules. I agree though that there could be the consideration of ethics, but again i didnt do it maliciously, and i never meant to 'screw' over any party involved...



Respect for that answer, especially as it would have been easy to see this thread as an attack on you (which it never was). I never thought for a second that you intended to screw anyone over - it was more a case of things happening too quickly. And I suppose we all let money dictate events on the FS/T forum - after all, that's why we are there! :-D

This has been a good thread, and I'm glad it remained objective throughout and ended amicably. There aren't enough threads that do. Cheers :thumbsup:

jonnyq;5214414

awoodhall - as long as you understand what the concern is, this is … awoodhall - as long as you understand what the concern is, this is nothing personal btw :thumbsup:if the books are still for sale and bob still wants them - I'll pay for them, you can send it directly to him



You put me to shame jq - I was going to offer to buy Bob the book from Amazon earlier but then decided it would be far too nice a thing to do. :oops:

bob100;5213869

According to this, surely i could just hold an auction on here then for … According to this, surely i could just hold an auction on here then for the highest bidder, as i can refuse to sell even if someone has met asking price



Not really, because you couldn't take offers over the asking price. So you'd eventually have to sell at the asking price. Which is why the asking price rule is there...

I agree that creating the second thread to sell wasn't really "in the spirit of things", and I don't think that it's something that a user should really do. It's unfortunate that things turned out this way, but I don't think that this is likely to become a regular occurance on here so I doubt it's worth arguing/falling out about.

Liddle ol' me;5214408

Respect for that answer, especially as it would have been easy to see … Respect for that answer, especially as it would have been easy to see this thread as an attack on you (which it never was). I never thought for a second that you intended to screw anyone over - it was more a case of things happening too quickly. And I suppose we all let money dictate events on the FS/T forum - after all, that's why we are there! This has been a good thread, and I'm glad it remained objective throughout and ended amicably. There aren't enough threads that do. Cheers :thumbsup:


To be honest i shall admit, like i just did to jonny via PM after he PMed me in regards to "no hard feelings" that to begin with it felt like there was an argument for arguments sake. But when i stepped back and looked objectively i realised that it was ambiguous and that it was easy to infer many conclusions. Therefore, i think we all just needed to chill a bit...which i think luckily this has done.

Thus i feel i owe you an apology for the PM sent (nothing too nasty!) and to jonny for in the original thread something about horses :thumbsup:

jonnyq;5214414

awoodhall - as long as you understand what the concern is, this is … awoodhall - as long as you understand what the concern is, this is nothing personal btw :thumbsup:if the books are still for sale and bob still wants them - I'll pay for them, you can send it directly to him


Nope as above and PM :thumbsup:
Well im not entirely sure what is happening now as i had alreayd given mutoo my payment details before i was aware of bobs thread, and thus unsure how mutoo intended to pay, if via paypal i have had no email as of yet, but if by BT then i am not sure, as he is now suspended as well for the obvious thread spoiling, i am uncertain on the sale! Although i might still have his details from the last deal with him.
But thus i cant say ill allow you to buy them, nor let bob buy them due to if mutoo has paid, or does pay while out of 'commission' then that could create yet another problem...ive had enough events for this week now :thumbsup:

duckmagicuk2;5214587

Not really, because you couldn't take offers over the asking price. So … Not really, because you couldn't take offers over the asking price. So you'd eventually have to sell at the asking price. Which is why the asking price rule is there...I agree that creating the second thread to sell wasn't really "in the spirit of things", and I don't think that it's something that a user should really do. It's unfortunate that things turned out this way, but I don't think that this is likely to become a regular occurance on here so I doubt it's worth arguing/falling out about.



Yes but i could just set the asking at something stupidly high and then just wait till highest bid

Banned

bob100;5215201

Yes but i could just set the asking at something stupidly high and then … Yes but i could just set the asking at something stupidly high and then just wait till highest bid



It's your call to a certain extent although you must take into account rule 10. Set a price too high and your thread will disappear.

(10) You must NOT list items for sale at higher than the recommended … (10) You must NOT list items for sale at higher than the recommended retail price. The marker of RRP will be determined by cross indexing with Amazon or other well known retailer. Profiteering is NOT permitted and this includes items previously found at a lower price in the 'Deals' or ANY forum here.

Interesting discussion. I would have sold to Bob, quite simply because without Bobs request the other 2 books wouldn't have even been put up for sale in a separate post. At the end of the day it isAndys decision who he sells to but the cause and effect logic is indeed flawed.

Apologies for the delay in responding to this thread - as has been pointed out above, my account was suspended for threadjacking (apologies bob100!).

Anyway, now that I'm back and have caught up I understand that the agreement now is that bob100 will buy the book he wants from awoodhall and I will buy the other 2. I will then buy the other book back from bob if and when he finishes using it.

Whats threadjacking in this context? The FS rules are outdated and point to a deleted wikipedia page, and other online definitions suggest its diverting a thread from its original topic. If you read the rules, I don't really see how what muutoo did breaches them - and if the definition of 'threadjacking' as interpreted by the relevant mods does it must be made clearer in the rules.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text