What's the norm/etiquette when faced with a situation like this?

[whackystrings]

Seller's remorse, and buyer's remorse.
If two parties have laid-out terms, form of payment, and an agreement to exchange goods and services, and if everyone shows good faith to adhere to the agreement and everything remains as agreed, the seller would need to do a big 'suck it up, Buttercup' and take it as a learning experience to pay forward to future deals.

If one of the conditions of the sale contains a clause (verbal, written) that someone else with the money who delivers it first will get the sale, then it is the prospective buyer's decision on whether to continue or not.
The ethical thing is that the terms of the purchase are kept intact and karma won't have your a$$.

I think with the anonymity of the internet, email, etc. we think that we can dance around the ethics because we can get away with it. If a buyer doesn't know your landline, your last name, or your address, then you can easily back out of a deal. I don't agree that it's the *right* thing to do but it's certainly easy to pull it off.

[evets618]

Honoring the first deal sounds good, until you realize that 90% of those who say they'll "call back" never do so.
There are several reasons why, the foremost being that your precious item is probably third or fourth on their list of prospects, and they found a better deal.
Do you think *they* are going to call *you* to explain this?
Wait, is this a Craig's List deal?
Make that 99%.

[StompBoxBlues]

Originally Posted by evets618

Honoring the first deal sounds good, until you realize that 90% of those who say they'll "call back" never do so.
There are several reasons why, the foremost being that your precious item is probably third or fourth on their list of prospects, and they found a better deal.
Do you think *they* are going to call *you* to explain this?
Wait, is this a Craig's List deal?
Make that 99%.

The only thing one has actual control over is what YOU yourself do.
That "everybody does it" has never really been a good argument, and also folks tend to exaggerate quite a bit as an excuse. I've had many deals with folks, I kept my end of it and the majority of folks I dealt with have kept theirs.
I've gotten screwed a few times, but I had kept my end of it, and that's just the breaks.

[coldfingaz]

Originally Posted by bluesgolfer

You have slandered me by writing on this forum that I labeled you a liar. I never did and don't see where anybody else did.

Is this really necessary? I mean, it's fine if you don't agree with me, but this overreaching legalese bullshit is what landed us into a 17 page or whatever pissing match.

So, now I'm slandering you by calling you the morality police or claiming that you called me a liar? Dude, seriously, relax. I didn't realize you were so sensitive & taking this whole thing so seriously or as some sort of personal attack. To me & many others, it seemed you were being judgmental... so I defended a stance that you attacked because I felt you were jumping the gun on your assessment.

From the beginning, I took exception to your post (which I previously quoted) where you painted those following your 2nd scenario as dishonorable & liars. I disagreed with on your premise & took exception to your blind characterization & "liar" labeling given that you did not have all the facts.

These situations (and the details of them) vary on a case by case basis. In this case, even a slight variation (e.g. how you interpreted the OP vs. how I did) can result in quite a gap in whether somebody's honorable, a liar or not.

The funny thing about all of this is that we probably agree for the most part.

Originally Posted by StompBoxBlues

The only thing one has actual control over is what YOU yourself do.

I completely agree with this, but the decisions you make are sometimes shaped by past experiences... negative & positive. Screwing somebody over isn't cool, but protecting yourself is prudent.

[bluesgolfer]

Originally Posted by MrTAteMyBalls

here. this is from your own post. I guess you forgot typing this. I await your response with giddy anticipation.

What are you waiting for, with giddy anticipation? Read the post. Coldfingaz says he was called a liar and untrustworty. Coldfingaz said I labeled him a liar. Read my post that you just quoted? It says nothing about Coldfingaz.

[slugworth]

I hate it when someone commits to buy then doesn't pay, or waits an inordinate amount of time. It's 100x worse when that happens and someone else has the funds ready to go. And it really sucks to lose out on sweet gear because a seller has committed to sell to some douche who is lazy about paying. There is an easy enough way to avoid it.

If I ever agree to let something go for cheaper than advertised, I always mention that I'll give the price break *IF* you pay today/this morning/in the next two hours or whatever. It solves this problem before it starts – the offering buyer knows he must pay quickly or lose the deal.

I'm also of the belief that your payment secures your deal, and if you don't send funds, then anyone else can still beat you to it.

[Fred Farkus]

All this "personal integrity" stuff is misplaced IMO. The buyer has shown no consideration and has merely made a promise to pay. He has not come through with his side of the deal yet, therefore there is no deal AFAIC.

If the buyer paid the money and meanwhile the seller sold it to someone else, I would consider that sleazy, even if he refunds buyer #1 the money. As stated in the OP though, the seller has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to the buyer at all at this point.

Maybe the best way to handle it in the future is to let the guy who is delaying payment know up front that if a better deal comes through, his deal is forfeited. That way you are communicating up front and making it clear. Either way, I see no ethical problem with canceling the offer to the first buyer, since he has not paid you yet.

[bluesgolfer]

Originally Posted by coldfingaz

Is this really necessary? I mean, it's fine if you don't agree with me, but this overreaching legalese bullshit is what landed us into a 17 page or whatever pissing match.

So, now I'm slandering you by calling you the morality police or claiming that you called me a liar? Dude, seriously, relax. I didn't realize you were so sensitive & taking this whole thing so seriously or as some sort of personal attack. To me & many others, it seemed you were being judgmental... so I defended a stance that you attacked because I felt you were jumping the gun on your assessment.

From the beginning, I took exception to your post (which I previously quoted) where you painted those following your 2nd scenario as dishonorable & liars. I disagreed with on your premise & took exception to your blind characterization & "liar" labeling given that you did not have all the facts.

These situations (and the details of them) vary on a case by case basis. In this case, even a slight variation (e.g. how you interpreted the OP vs. how I did) can result in quite a gap in whether somebody's honorable, a liar or not.

The funny thing about all of this is that we probably agree for the most part.





I completely agree with this, but the decisions you make are sometimes shaped by past experiences... negative & positive. Screwing somebody over isn't cool, but protecting yourself is prudent.

The legalese bullshit is not bullshit. People here presented contract principles accurately and they deserve a little more respect for that for doing so. Some people will scoff at contract law if it doesn't support their behavior but if people followed basic contract principles in their dealings, we wouldn't have so many problems with botched deals.

You wrote here for this entire forum to see that you have been called a liar and untrustworthy and that I specifically labeled you a liar. Those are very serious accusations that you memorialized here in black and white for everybody here to see. When you make accusations like that, it had better be true. If not, you need to man up and make a retraction. I have not seen a retraction from you, only a continuing accusation.

Now, I am sorry you thought you were being called a liar. If you had that belief, then I can understand why you may have made some of your own comments. Now, I also see that you had a different interpretation of the transaction between op and buyer. Although I and others don't agree on your interpretation because it is very clear from the op's post that they agreed, I know once someone interprets something a certain way, it is tough to see it any other way. So, in that regard, I can understand why you so strongly took the position that you did.

So, you had a different understanding and shaped your arguments and comments accordingly. I realize if is very frustrating dealing on TGP because some people don't have a very good sense of doing what is legal or doing what is just plain right. I know I was burned here before by some buyer who strung me along. It would be easy for me to say, hey, that buyer had no integrity or honor, why should I in any of my dealings? Instead, however, I am in the camp who refuses to do things that way. If I say I am going to deliver you a guitar and I'll hold the deal open until the close of the business day on June 15, 2012 for payment, that is what I'll do. I'll treat people like that and I want to deal with others who feel the same because we have some certainty. I don't think that for those of us in that camp should be criticised.

Lastly, I agree that protecting yourself is prudent but I would advocate doing so by an agreement laying out the specifics, item, price, time, method of shipment, who bears cost of loss, etc. The more specific the better. And then stick to the agreement.

Take care. A little more strummin' and a little less typing would be nice.

[amigo30]

Here's a simple formula that will help with making such decisions.

Buyer 2 price - Buyer 1 price = $x

If the price of your personal honor and integrity is equal to or less than $x, sell to buyer 2.
If the price of your personal honor and integrity is greater than $x, sell to buyer 1.

[Roadbull]

Originally Posted by Fred Farkus

All this "personal integrity" stuff is misplaced IMO. The buyer has shown no consideration and has merely made a promise to pay. He has not come through with his side of the deal yet, therefore there is no deal AFAIC.

If the buyer paid the money and meanwhile the seller sold it to someone else, I would consider that sleazy, even if he refunds buyer #1 the money. As stated in the OP though, the seller has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to the buyer at all at this point.

Maybe the best way to handle it in the future is to let the guy who is delaying payment know up front that if a better deal comes through, his deal is forfeited. That way you are communicating up front and making it clear. Either way, I see no ethical problem with canceling the offer to the first buyer, since he has not paid you yet.

Wrong. A deal is struck when 2 parties verbally or otherwise agree to the terms of a transaction. Paying and delivering the goods are just following through on the deal.

As far as we can tell from the OP, that was the case here - he agreed on a price and to wait. So pulling out would have been going back on his word, reneging on the deal - whatever you want to call it. If he had not agreed on the time frame then I don't think pulling out would have been reneging.

[dmb70]

Originally Posted by AD_

Money didn't change hands, so it wasn't sold. Agreeing to pay in a few days isn't a binding deal.
.

That's my take as well.

[A-Bone]

Originally Posted by Roadbull

Wrong. A deal is struck when 2 parties verbally or otherwise agree to the terms of a transaction. Paying and delivering the goods are just following through on the deal.

As far as we can tell from the OP, that was the case here - he agreed on a price and to wait. So pulling out would have been going back on his word, reneging on the deal - whatever you want to call it. If he had not agreed on the time frame then I don't think pulling out would have been reneging.

Exactly. I think some here are conflating contract formation and performance.

[Prerequisite]

Once I pounced on an excellent Matchless Spitfire on Craiglist. The guy was in Atlanta, so we had a day chosen and money and everything, it was a done deal. Atlanta is about a 4 hour drive from where I live, and I had already been on the way (about an hour away from home) when the guy called and told me he sold it while I was on the way, literally three hours from the sale, to a guy who offered $200 more. Needless to say I was mad.. which is why I've rethought my etiquette in this situation.

If you get a higher bid after you have set a deal with another person, at least give the other guy 2-3 days to match that bid. If the second buyer offers you more within a day or two of sale, just tell him you can't.

[Fred Farkus]

Originally Posted by Roadbull

Wrong. A deal is struck when 2 parties verbally or otherwise agree to the terms of a transaction. Paying and delivering the goods are just following through on the deal.

As far as we can tell from the OP, that was the case here - he agreed on a price and to wait. So pulling out would have been going back on his word, reneging on the deal - whatever you want to call it. If he had not agreed on the time frame then I don't think pulling out would have been reneging.

Nonsense.

The buyer has offered no consideration whatsoever, just a promise. Talk is cheap and involves no commitment on his end. No commitment means no "deal". Since the buyer has not honored any commitment at this point, the seller is not obligated to honor any either.

Most buyers understand that "money talks, bullsh*t walks". Most understand that if they delay payment, they risk losing out if someone else comes along with the money right now- especially if that person is offering more money. Those who don't understand that are completely unreasonable and are living in fantasyland.

The thing some of you guys aren't getting is there is no "deal" in this case. There is certainly no "transaction", as nothing has changed hands. There is no "transaction" until a) the product is delivered or b) money has been paid. Until then, this is all just idle talk and a buyer who is delaying payment is living on wishful thinking.

With no "deal" existing, there are no "terms" to break and ethics don't come into play at all. You want terms? Pay the money now or at least offer a deposit. That is the buyer's way of showing consideration or making an actual commitment, not just a promise.

[Fred Farkus]

Originally Posted by Prerequisite

If you get a higher bid after you have set a deal with another person, at least give the other guy 2-3 days to match that bid. If the second buyer offers you more within a day or two of sale, just tell him you can't.

I dont' disagree with that at all. There are all kinds of ways of handling this situation in a way that is fair to everyone.