GNS 530W for sale

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, Hank said:

Then I retract my statement, apologize to you and feel your pain if you were the intended buyer at the original price. Don't think, though, that there's a whole lot you can do outside of Small Claims Court, which may have a $5000 limit. Then there's the question of jurisdiction:  your home or his'n?

I have zero intention of that and was only pointing out that a person’s word is only worth something when they keep it even though it might be personally advantageous to do otherwise. 

[Hank]

Just now, LANCECASPER said:

I have zero intention of that and was only pointing out that a person’s word is only worth something when they keep it even though it might be personally advantageous to do otherwise. 

When I bought my current house, the seller kept wanting to amend the contract after we had both signed it. Raise the price, have input on who made some needed repairs that they chose not to do beforehand, split the actual repair cost instead of paying the agreed-upon amount, etc., etc. I threatened legal action, and suggested a review of Contract Law, even a 10-second one on Wikipedia. Got the house per the signed contract . . . Otherwise, it would have cost them much more than refunding my deposit.

[LANCECASPER]

9 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

You're using the word "word" to imply he made a contract with someone. I don't think you really intend to have a discussion about mutual assent do you? Let's leave lawyering to the lawyers.

 

For people who care about their reputation their word is just as good as a written contract.

[Oldguy]

18 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

For people who care about their reputation their word is just as good as a written contract.

And sometimes better than someone else's written contract.

[jkhirsch]

19 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

For people who care about their reputation their word is just as good as a written contract.

That statement implies that a contract requires something to be "written." Someone's "word" or actions in many cases have legally constituted a contract. Besides that, you have stated that the details were enumerated on this site through a private message, which makes them "written." You've only shared the side of the story which makes it appear that the seller has done something wrong, when it may just be something you don't agree with and then called for public outcry over his behavior.

It's also clear that his original post he intended to sell it for $500 more than what the shop would offer him. Quoting him out of that context is not an objective representation of the situation.

If you're going to make those implications in public it's only fair that all of the relevant information be presented, especially when you as the accuser are in possession of that information.

I am not in favor of either party, only the way it has been represented and the way information appears to have been withheld.

[nels]

13 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

That statement implies that a contract requires something to be "written." Someone's "word" or actions in many cases have legally constituted a contract. Besides that, you have stated that the details were enumerated on this site through a private message, which makes them "written." You've only shared the side of the story which makes it appear that the seller has done something wrong, when it may just be something you don't agree with and then called for public outcry over his behavior.

It's also clear that his original post he intended to sell it for $500 more than what the shop would offer him. Quoting him out of that context is not an objective representation of the situation.

If you're going to make those implications in public it's only fair that all of the relevant information be presented, especially when you as the accuser are in possession of that information.

I am not in favor of either party, only the way it has been represented and the way information appears to have been withheld.

I agree with you. I also think it's time to just forget it.

[peevee]

36 minutes ago, nels said:

 I also think it's time to just forget it.

x50

[LANCECASPER]

2 hours ago, jkhirsch said:

If you're going to make those implications in public it's only fair that all of the relevant information be presented, especially when you as the accuser are in possession of that information.

I just made the comment about people sticking to their word when they say they will do something - it's not the end of the world. If you go back on this thread it's right there.

After that was posted, a private message was sent letting him know that he could mark it sold and he responded agreeing to that. Later he got a better offer and backed out on the deal. Please let's let this rest.

[RLCarter]

Sounds like a set of seats that were offered on here I almost got to buy, seller had them on eBay after he agreed to sell them to me, some just have no problem taking a better deal

[peevee]

37 minutes ago, RLCarter said:

Sounds like a set of seats that were offered on here I almost got to buy, seller had them on eBay after he agreed to sell them to me, some just have no problem taking a better deal

I remember that, raw deal.

[LANCECASPER]

11 hours ago, RLCarter said:

Sounds like a set of seats that were offered on here I almost got to buy, seller had them on eBay after he agreed to sell them to me, some just have no problem taking a better deal

Sometimes the deals that go South and don't happen are the best way the deal could have gone - meaning that once you know you're dealing with someone that's a weasel, it might turn out for the best that the deal didn't happen at all. Who knows what other details would have popped up? In the grand scheme it's best to keep looking forward and move on.

[jkhirsch]

14 hours ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

Again, his original intent was to sell for $500 over whatever value he could get from trading it in. He never explicitly said that he wasn't actively trying to find the best trade-in price.

It's amazing that you still use information out of context and only provide your version of the communication of two of you.

The situation has not been represented objectively which is why I have yet to "let it rest."

[jkhirsch]

2 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

weasel

And now you have resorted to name-calling.

[LANCECASPER]

4 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

Again, his original intent was to sell for $500 over whatever value he could get from trading it in. He never explicitly said that he wasn't actively trying to find the best trade-in price.

It's amazing that you still use information out of context and only provide your version of the communication of two of you.

The situation has not been represented objectively which is why I have yet to "let it rest."

Look at the dates of the posts - that may have been his original intent on 8/21 - but once he advertised it for $6000 on 8/22 and in PM accepted that offer he should have been done shopping for a better price. I realize this is an extreme example, but the principle of keeping one's word still applies - Once you proposed to your wife and got engaged would she have been OK if you still dated, looking for a better deal before the wedding day?

To me it's simple, you tell someone you're going to do something, you do it, plain and simple. Some people get that, others don't and go through life looking for loopholes to get out of what they committed to. 

4 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

And now you have resorted to name-calling.

That wasn't specifically directed toward him, but was just a general comment about anyone who backs out of a deal for his benefit and doesn't consider the other person's interest, such as the person who agreed to sell his Mooney seats to a member then advertised them on Ebay, but it's that same principle. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weasel

[jkhirsch]

42 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

doesn't consider the other person's interest

That's an incredibly hypocritical thing to say in this situation. He was offering the 530 well below market, you're not considering his interests only your own.

I agree that he may have incepted a contract with you, but your issue seems to be that he was only looking out for his best interest, when you have made it clear that you are only looking out for your best interest.

[tigers2007]

It would have been ridiculous only if he had already shipped out the radio and asked for more money from the buyer. This actually happened two weeks ago from Suburban Cadillac of Plymouth MI. New XT5 cash purchase. Twenty hours after delivery a phone call is received that we owe them $2500 more. Told them to take a hike or give us our money back along with the Buick trade-in. Their request disappeared.
Market prices fluctuated. He did specify he wasn't taking deposits; this was a cash-in-hand deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

redact

Edited October 4, 2017 by aviatoreb

[LANCECASPER]

1 hour ago, jkhirsch said:

That's an incredibly hypocritical thing to say in this situation. He was offering the 530 well below market, you're not considering his interests only your own.

I agree that he may have incepted a contract with you, but your issue seems to be that he was only looking out for his best interest, when you have made it clear that you are only looking out for your best interest.

What would have been hypocritical is for me to criticize him for backing out on this deal and then do the same to someone else. I don't do that.

No sane person commits to something that they don't believe is in their best interest. However after you give your word on it, then you either keep your word or you don't, this is not complicated.

If he had said I'm not taking offers, I'm still shopping around, I get it completely, but on 8/22 he said:

 

Then that evening he stated in his PM to me that several people said they were interested but the first person that commits owns it. I did, he didn't. Done

[RLCarter]

It's simple, the seller jumped the gun on setting his price, (he didn't have all his bids in) once he realized there was a grand left on the table he wanted it. Now it looks like it's only 500 extra and a not so stellar reputation 

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, RLCarter said:

It's simple, the seller jumped the gun on setting his price, (he didn't have all his bids in) once he realized there was a grand left on the table he wanted it. Now it looks like it's only 500 extra and a not so stellar reputation 

And a compromise I offered is to sell it for what he was getting ($6500) to make it right. He would rather sell it to them for $6500, which in retrospect is fine. They can have the pleasure of dealing with him.

[jkhirsch]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

 

You can continually quote that out of context and it doesn't change the fact that he quoted that based on the belief that he could only get $5,500 dollars of value for the unit on trade-in.

You also failed to address your hypocritical statement that you are clearly only looking out for your best interests and so was he. If you were considering his best interests you would not have posted your version of the story claiming he has done wrong by you without the actual details disseminated to the public trying to convince everyone he is a "weasel." 

 

[jkhirsch]

3 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

And a compromise I offered is to sell it for what he was getting ($6500) to make it right. He would rather sell it to them for $6500, which in retrospect is fine. They can have the pleasure of dealing with him.

New information that you have previously withheld.

Edited October 4, 2017 by jkhirsch

[LANCECASPER]

Just now, jkhirsch said:

New information that you have previously withheld.

Go back on this thread and read my post on 9/29 - its there.

[LANCECASPER]

5 minutes ago, jkhirsch said:

You also failed to address your hypocritical statement that you are clearly only looking out for your best interests and so was he.

No I didn't fail to address that.

14 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

What would have been hypocritical is for me to criticize him for backing out on this deal and then do the same to someone else. I don't do that.

No sane person commits to something that they don't believe is in their best interest. However after you give your word on it, then you either keep your word or you don't, this is not complicated.

 

[jkhirsch]

6 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Go back on this thread and read my post on 9/29 - its there.

No you posted a passive aggressive response that said roughly, in a perfect world you would have sold it to the person you said you would sell it to for the $6500. At the time you had not admitted to being the second party involved.