A difficult buyer or seller, especially one who's "intentionally" difficult, can make #1 impossible. Sometimes this is done to sweeten the deal for themselves. I've seen it happen quite a bit, even been on the sour end of it.

quote:

Originally posted by elambo:
A difficult buyer or seller, especially one who's "intentionally" difficult, can make #1 impossible. Sometimes this is done to sweeten the deal for themselves. I've seen it happen quite a bit, even been on the sour end of it.

Ditto. Been there as well. I'll admit that I operate under a double standard though – one for the forum and another for outside deals. I consider the forum a community and I'm a member of that community so I tend to give some slack to someone else in the community.

Sometimes a forum member (not necessarily this forum) will agree to a sale then back out (or feign backing out), ostensibly because they have second thoughts about selling. Maybe you find out later that they were fielding multiple offers and someone came in late with a sweeter deal. I feel like I lose something if I have to twist the guy’s arm to purchase his guitar. He’s definitely losing something by selling his character for a few dollars more, but that’s another issue.

quote:

There is some slop in the use of terms. When we agree on terms (price, shipping cost and pays, etc.) we have a deal. After money and merchandise have been sent and confirmed to have been recieved, and any approval period is over, the transaction has been completed.

Bluegrass Boy has the right terminology. In negotiations, "done" means "we have a deal." At that point, all of the relevant terms/conditions should be clear -- if not, that's just a problem waiting to happen.

If a party wants to change the terms of the deal after reaching agreement but before the goods/cash have changed hands ("transaction completed"), then this is not ethical. One has given one's word, and should keep it.

If something has come up after the "done" but before the transaction has been completed that prevents one party from performing, then the proper action is for the party to ASK the other to be released from the agreement. In casual transactions, as have been discussed in this thread, this is normally granted. Further, in my view, I don't want to force the other person to complete a transaction that is apparent that the other person does not want to agree -- again, just more problems waiting to happen. In the business world, this is the point where it gets turned over to the lawyers. In either casual or business transactions, I generally never do another transaction with a party who has backed out of a deal after "done" -- by observations, their word is not worth anything. However, there are exceptions to this in a casual transaction, since real emergencies can come up for someone.

Once we get to "done" with all the terms and conditions specified, my goal is to get the transaction completed as quickly as possible. Nothing good ever happens between "done" and execution/completion of the transaction.

To me, the handshake seals the deal. This may come in many forms, often a verbal acknowledgement that there is a deal, sometimes it's written. An actual handshake feels best as it mano a mano (literally). It means you understand, agree, and stake your honor on it. For some, that means a lot.

I believe that ethically a deal is done when both parties agree to a price or a trade and the relevant details.
I have noted that forum members are willing to make special allowances for other members of the forum. Does this mean that forum members expect or allow a lower ethical standard for forum members; or that you simply extend more grace to fellow forum members?
I am willing to allow anyone to change his/her mind and may allow him/her not to honor their agreement. What bothers me is when someone makes an agreement, backs out of it, sells the guitar for a higher price and proclaims himself/herself to be virtuous.
For me it is never worth it to pursue it in court. In a sense, law is the lowest common denominator of morality

I recently reached agreement with a guy to trade one of my guitars for one of his. His guitar was on consignment, but he was in the process of getting the guitar back. In fact, it had been boxed for shipment. When he sent an e-mail to the dealer instructing him to ship the guitar to me instead of to him, the dealer told him a guy who had seen the guitar in his store wanted to buy it and was "trying to arrange financing." At that point I was surprised that the owner of the guitar didn't tell his dealer that he had traded the guitar so the buyer was too late. Instead he asked me to wait to see if the financing was forthcoming. The next day I got an e-mail note saying the buyer put the guitar on his credit card so the guitar had been sold and shipped to he buyer and our trade was kaput. I let it go, but felt the seller had violated the spirit of our agreement. We are both members of this forum, by the way, and I harbor no hard feelings, but I was disappointed in the way things were handled. It wasn't a black and white situation, but if the roles had been reversed I would have honored the trade agreement. Comments?

quote:

but if the roles had been reversed I would have honored the trade agreement. Comments?

I too, would have Honored the Agreement...Period....MRT

I would have honored the agreement as well. On a brigter note; I have had the great pleasure of buying several guitars, mandos, calton's and just a bunch of "guitar stuff" from other Foremites. My experience has been of the highest caliber!! Sorry that you had a bad experience but I appreciate the fact that you harbor no ill feelings. That my friend speaks volumes about your good chartacter. phil

Two points
1. The deal that ultimately was finalized may have begun before you spoke to the owner of the guitar. Shame on the store owner.
2. The store doesn't make any money if the guitar is sent to you. I think if the dealer was asked to ship to a buyer, he should have made a bit of commission for his involvment with the deal. The owner of the guitar should have asked the store to send it back to him, then the prospective buyer would have been told the guitar was no longer available. If the guitar had gone back to the original owner, the store owner wouldn't have felt he had been snaked out of his commission.

i should have known 1/2 of collings players were lawyers. reagarding internet sales in my lay opinion the "deal is done" when the approval period ends. adjustments after that point are optional on either party. until that time, unless you've negotiated otherwise, you are free to change your mind.

Ferd

The "approval period" is an option that is given to buyer by seller. It's like a free call option, the right to buy the guitar at a specified price, that expires in an agreed amount of time, for example 48 hours.

If one were to purchase a guitar on a provisional 48 hour approval, and 24 hours into the period the seller calls and said he has sold the guitar to someone else, would this be right? I don't think so. Thus, during the approval period, the buyer is free to change -- that's what "approval" means, but not the seller.

I should add that if the buyer has not committed to the selling price, but just wants to try the guitar before committing, then the seller can sell it anytime. This would be no different than the buyer taking a guitar off the wall in a store and trying it out, no commitment, no offer to buy. (Of course, if I were the seller, there's no way I'd send an instrument out without an agreement on the purchase price.)