RANT .. bad experience...

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,772
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
...so just resigned from another Photo Forum XYZ

2 newcomers were bidding on 2 separate items - not super cracking lens bargains, but startup bits a newbie would be acquiring.

the prices were negotiated down a little, and funds were to be sent BT the next day as Friday = payday -- and agreed by seller

two "opportunists" then jumped in quoting rule "no bid if funds not available" and grabbed the items at the reduced price by offering immediate BT...
the Mod upheld the Rule

I, and 2 others, posted we thought that this was unethical....all 3 posts were removed - I resigned

I have sent funds twice here AFTER my pension cheque was received - and both sellers were decent in their transactions....:thumbs: ... so thanks!

"""RANT OVER""
 
The late payment arrangement shouldn't have been made public. Then everyone would have been happy ;)
 
Yardbent said:
two "opportunists" then jumped in quoting rule "no bid if funds not available" and grabbed the items at the reduced price by offering immediate BT...
the Mod upheld the Rule
Click to expand...

So the mod told the vendor who they must sell to? And the vendor agreed?

pfft.
 
I'm missing something here. The seller(s) accepted the bids, and the promise to pay the following day via BT, so the contract (s) of sale were complete. A couple of other people cited forum rules "no bid if funds not available", which could render the agreements null and void, but it wouldn't compel the seller(s) to accept their offers if they didn't want to, surely?

One more point. What does "no bid if funds not available" mean? Does this rule mean that the buyer must have the funds available immediately, in the sense of being able to hand over or transfer the cash value within minutes of the seller's agreement, or does it simply mean that the price must be paid within a reasonable period - say a day or two - and should not be subject to any suspensive conditions such as borrowing? What if the buyer prefers to post a cheque, and the seller agrees, subject to clearance?
 
onomatopoeia said:
So the mod told the vendor who they must sell to? And the vendor agreed?...pfft.
Click to expand...

Yes..the Mod upheld the Rule that said " first firm offer with funds available "

what was galling was that the 2 "opportunists" were old-time regulars - 100s of posts - didn't need to shaft a newcomer.. which were exactly the words the newcomer used.

I did send them a PM with link to TP !!.....:D
 
MartynK said:
1...The seller(s) accepted the bids, and the promise to pay the following day via BT, so the contract (s) of sale were complete.

2....Does this rule mean that the buyer must have the funds available immediately,

3 prefers to post a cheque, and the seller agrees, subject to clearance?
Click to expand...

1...the point of my complaint
2...yes...sorry cannot quote the rule cos banned...
3...quite right

again..a totally unethical transaction
 
I can see why your upset. There's nothing as gauling as legalised injustice.
 
Sounds a bit petty to me - the situation that is: you are quite right to be annoyed at this...I would be...
 
Yardbent said:
...so just resigned from another Photo Forum XYZ

2 newcomers were bidding on 2 separate items - not super cracking lens bargains, but startup bits a newbie would be acquiring.

the prices were negotiated down a little, and funds were to be sent BT the next day as Friday = payday -- and agreed by seller

two "opportunists" then jumped in quoting rule "no bid if funds not available" and grabbed the items at the reduced price by offering immediate BT...
the Mod upheld the Rule

I, and 2 others, posted we thought that this was unethical....all 3 posts were removed - I resigned

I have sent funds twice here AFTER my pension cheque was received - and both sellers were decent in their transactions....:thumbs: ... so thanks!

"""RANT OVER""
Click to expand...

bad publicity here..no names though..thats discreet and fair..
 
Yardbent said:
Yes..the Mod upheld the Rule that said " first firm offer with funds available "
Click to expand...

Whatever the mod said, the vendor should have said "get stuffed" except with more expletives and sold to the person they made the initial agreement with. It is an agreement between two people and while arranged via a forum they are not party to the agreement.

That said, there was a bit of a ruckus when two people agreed a sale by PM instead of the open forum in the classifieds here last week...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top