He sent me the exact same answer. I responded by saying that he should have followed through with the sale and I got this gem of a response. I'll tidy up the language a bit
Yeah well thats probably because someone didn't get what they wanted. It was an honest mistake, and I refunded the money. So I don't see what the XXX XXXX big deal is. Obviously, this ball is drawing some interest.. but none of you jews want to spend any money on it. >>
WOW! The guy sounds like a peach and a racist one at that.
<< <i>You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. Yes, the buyer got a free book in exchange for cancelling the auction, but the $1500 offer was made after the book was already sold at $500. My humble opinion is that it became the buyer's book at that point and should not have been bargained for with anyone else. Laying that aside, the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer. My contention is that ethically speaking, the right thing to do was offer the buyer a cut of the extra profit and the free book for agreeing to cancel, which he had no obligation to do. >>
Your inference (the bolded statement) may or may not be true. Mullins did not make it clear one way or another. However, based upon his phrasing, I would guess that he may have led off with the higher offer as an explanation for why he wanted to send the lower condition book for free. >>
Riiiight.
Ok...how about I tweak it a bit for the nitpicky out there... "Laying that aside, the overwhelming probability is the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer."
Again, does anyone realistically believe that a) the seller fully disclosed the higher offer, and b) if they would have done so, that the buyer would have just said, "Sure- fine, you make the extra $1000 on this book you just sold me that I just paid for. I'll just take this used copy for free instead."?
Ok...how about I tweak it a bit for the nitpicky out there... "Laying that aside, the overwhelming probability is the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer."
Again, does anyone realistically believe that a) the seller fully disclosed the higher offer, and b) if they would have done so, that the buyer would have just said, "Sure- fine, you make the extra $1000 on this book you just sold me that I just paid for. I'll just take this used copy for free instead."?
Yeah, that seems likely. (sarcasm) >>
Not if the buyer was looking for the book in any condition and that happened to be the only one available at that time.
Just as realistically, if you were the winner of an auction and the seller contacted you offering a lesser condition example for free, would your response only be "yes" or "no"? I would think either way, you would ask "Why?" I know I would. I think it is highly likely that Mullins had to provide some explanation to the buyer. Whether or not that explanation was 100% truthful, only Mullins can let us know.
In your scenario above, the alternative to b) would be that the buyer would say, "No, I want the book for $500. But would you mind sending me the email address of the guy who made the offer for $1,500? And would you take $XXX for the lesser condition copy? Thanks."
I am not trying to be nitpicky, nor am I defending Mullins. I just feel that you came to a conclusion that makes a board member look bad when it is not a certainty.
Also, since it was an auction, you cannot conclude that the item would have been paid for prior to Mullins contacting the buyer. On that point, I am clearly being nitpicky.
Also, since it was an auction, you cannot conclude that the item would have been paid for prior to Mullins contacting the buyer. On that point, I am clearly being nitpicky.
Um...yeah, I actually CAN conclude that the item was paid for prior to the deal offer. From Mullins' own post in fact: "I contacted the winner and proposed that I give them a refund and give them, for free, the same book but in a lower grade." So the item had obviously been paid for- otherwise no refund offer would be necessary!
I'm not trying to foment some massive argument here but frankly if nothing else the circumstantial evidence suggests that the original buyer had no clue about the offer and that the seller had no intention of enlightening him.
IN-MY-OPINION.
To be clear, I also never said that the seller was obligated to give the buyer the name of the person making the offer...however, I related a personal experience where that is what I did personally.
I think I'll make this my last post about this...we're straying from my main point anyway (that the deal was done when the $500 changed hands), and anyone reading my previous posts should be able to figure out what I'm trying to convey here.
I should know better than to try to argue ethics on the internet. Sigh.
I'm def not taking sides. I don't think all the facts are here. Buut.. In the real world, I think if the buyer at $500 knew someone wanted it at $1500, hed either want it to sell it himself for $1-1500, or he'd say give me a cut of the $1000 difference.
I'll take the OPs word at what he says. Maybe just needs to be clearer because some seem confused.
I think there is one other point that is being overlooked here. It appears that $500 changed hands such that the book became the property of the auction winner. Therefore, when the original seller approached the auction winner after it became the auction winner's property, as I see it, the original seller at that point was a buyer. He offered $500 and a lower end book of the same type to purchase it.
I don't understand why original seller, who is now a buyer, is obligated at that point to explain his reasons for wanting to buy it back. Certainly the auction winner could ask, but as I see it, the now buyer is under no obligation to explain his reasons. The knowledge that the now buyer has of someone willing to pay $1,500 is his "property" to keep, sell, give away, or disclose and use in a negotiation to purchase the book as he sees fit.
I just want to say, that if I were in the seller's position, I would have ignored the original email from the buyer at $1,500. Once an auction is over, I'm done with it. It's not worth the hassle and risk to me.
Nothing wrong with this compromise. From the buyer's standpoint he sold the book back to the seller for a quick profit. From the Seller's point of view he bought the book from the buyer to flip.
<< <i>I'm def not taking sides. I don't think all the facts are here. Buut.. In the real world, I think if the buyer at $500 knew someone wanted it at $1500, hed either want it to sell it himself for $1-1500, or he'd say give me a cut of the $1000 difference. >>
Just because the buyer quietly accepted the cancellation doesn't mean he was happy with the cancellation or with the consolation price he received. He probably wasn't given a choice. What did the seller tell him the reason was for needing to cancel. Was it lost or stolen? Did the dog or cat eat or defecate on it? If the seller says he can't send it then the buyer has no choice. Giving the lesser book wasn't a generous act by the seller, but he could have just given him nothing and take the negative. Giving the second book made the whole deal ethical in the seller's mind.
<< <i>Also, since it was an auction, you cannot conclude that the item would have been paid for prior to Mullins contacting the buyer. On that point, I am clearly being nitpicky.
Um...yeah, I actually CAN conclude that the item was paid for prior to the deal offer. From Mullins' own post in fact: "I contacted the winner and proposed that I give them a refund and give them, for free, the same book but in a lower grade." So the item had obviously been paid for- otherwise no refund offer would be necessary! >>
You are correct. My bad. Also, my intent with the nitpicky comment was to be funny. I should have put a winking emoticon after it. If it came off as snarky or condescending, I apologize.
<< <i>I'm not trying to foment some massive argument here but frankly if nothing else the circumstantial evidence suggests that the original buyer had no clue about the offer and that the seller had no intention of enlightening him.
IN-MY-OPINION.
To be clear, I also never said that the seller was obligated to give the buyer the name of the person making the offer...however, I related a personal experience where that is what I did personally.
I think I'll make this my last post about this...we're straying from my main point anyway (that the deal was done when the $500 changed hands), and anyone reading my previous posts should be able to figure out what I'm trying to convey here.
I should know better than to try to argue ethics on the internet. Sigh. >>
I agree with the fact that the deal was done after the $500 changed hands.
<< <i><< I'm def not taking sides. I don't think all the facts are here. Buut.. In the real world, I think if the buyer at $500 knew someone wanted it at $1500, hed either want it to sell it himself for $1-1500, or he'd say give me a cut of the $1000 difference. >>
Thank you. Someone gets it. >>
I get that, too.
I also can see, Mullins explaining that he had a child on the way and someone else offered significantly more money after the auction ended, followed with a proposal of completing the transaction or sending a lesser condition copy for free. The buyer could have been compassionate, desired the book in any condition, or is not an Ebay seller (indifferent to flipping it for a profit or not willing to go through the effort). Regardless, the buyer could have just seen the situation as getting what they wanted for free and been happy with that.
I am in agreement that he was ethically bound to ship the item that was sold.
That should not preclude him from making an offer to send the other book for free as long as he provided both options to the buyer. The only reason I brought it up was that it appeared to be assumed that Mullins did not offer to complete the transaction with the buyer. Either way, we don't know how the transaction went.
Anyhow, the main reason I posted was to point out the racist slur used by the "seller" mentioned by the OP.
Just because the buyer quietly accepted the cancellation doesn't mean he was happy with the cancellation or with the consolation price he received. He probably wasn't given a choice. What did the seller tell him the reason was for needing to cancel. Was it lost or stolen? Did the dog or cat eat or defecate on it? If the seller says he can't send it then the buyer has no choice. Giving the lesser book wasn't a generous act by the seller, but he could have just given him nothing and take the negative. Giving the second book made the whole deal ethical in the seller's mind.
This event is pure speculation as there is nothing yet in this thread to suggest it went down this way. With that said, in the situation you described here where the buyer hasn't yet taken possession of the item and the seller uses that as leverage, then I completely agree a wrong would be committed.
The uncertainty as to the full set of facts is the reason why I qualified my opinion by saying I don't see where a violation of ethics occurredbased on the facts known at this time.
Edited to add: In a situation where we don't know all the facts, what is the harm in assuming the best of Mullins in this situation? Why is it that some would rather take a cynical view and assume the worst? That's what I don't get. BTW, I don't know Mullins from Adam and have had no prior dealings with him.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
He sent me the exact same answer. I responded by saying that he should have followed through with the sale and I got this gem of a response. I'll tidy up the language a bit
Yeah well thats probably because someone didn't get what they wanted. It was an honest mistake, and I refunded the money. So I don't see what the XXX XXXX big deal is. Obviously, this ball is drawing some interest.. but none of you jews want to spend any money on it. >>
WOW! The guy sounds like a peach and a racist one at that.
<< <i>You obviously misunderstood what I wrote. Yes, the buyer got a free book in exchange for cancelling the auction, but the $1500 offer was made after the book was already sold at $500. My humble opinion is that it became the buyer's book at that point and should not have been bargained for with anyone else. Laying that aside, the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer. My contention is that ethically speaking, the right thing to do was offer the buyer a cut of the extra profit and the free book for agreeing to cancel, which he had no obligation to do. >>
Your inference (the bolded statement) may or may not be true. Mullins did not make it clear one way or another. However, based upon his phrasing, I would guess that he may have led off with the higher offer as an explanation for why he wanted to send the lower condition book for free. >>
Riiiight.
Ok...how about I tweak it a bit for the nitpicky out there... "Laying that aside, the overwhelming probability is the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer."
Again, does anyone realistically believe that
a) the seller fully disclosed the higher offer, and
b) if they would have done so, that the buyer would have just said, "Sure- fine, you make the extra $1000 on this book you just sold me that I just paid for. I'll just take this used copy for free instead."?
Yeah, that seems likely. (sarcasm)
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>
Riiiight.
Ok...how about I tweak it a bit for the nitpicky out there... "Laying that aside, the overwhelming probability is the buyer accepted the free book offer unknowing of the higher offer."
Again, does anyone realistically believe that
a) the seller fully disclosed the higher offer, and
b) if they would have done so, that the buyer would have just said, "Sure- fine, you make the extra $1000 on this book you just sold me that I just paid for. I'll just take this used copy for free instead."?
Yeah, that seems likely. (sarcasm) >>
Not if the buyer was looking for the book in any condition and that happened to be the only one available at that time.
Just as realistically, if you were the winner of an auction and the seller contacted you offering a lesser condition example for free, would your response only be "yes" or "no"? I would think either way, you would ask "Why?" I know I would. I think it is highly likely that Mullins had to provide some explanation to the buyer. Whether or not that explanation was 100% truthful, only Mullins can let us know.
In your scenario above, the alternative to b) would be that the buyer would say, "No, I want the book for $500. But would you mind sending me the email address of the guy who made the offer for $1,500? And would you take $XXX for the lesser condition copy? Thanks."
I am not trying to be nitpicky, nor am I defending Mullins. I just feel that you came to a conclusion that makes a board member look bad when it is not a certainty.
Also, since it was an auction, you cannot conclude that the item would have been paid for prior to Mullins contacting the buyer. On that point, I am clearly being nitpicky.
Um...yeah, I actually CAN conclude that the item was paid for prior to the deal offer. From Mullins' own post in fact: "I contacted the winner and proposed that I give them a refund and give them, for free, the same book but in a lower grade." So the item had obviously been paid for- otherwise no refund offer would be necessary!
I'm not trying to foment some massive argument here but frankly if nothing else the circumstantial evidence suggests that the original buyer had no clue about the offer and that the seller had no intention of enlightening him.
IN-MY-OPINION.
To be clear, I also never said that the seller was obligated to give the buyer the name of the person making the offer...however, I related a personal experience where that is what I did personally.
I think I'll make this my last post about this...we're straying from my main point anyway (that the deal was done when the $500 changed hands), and anyone reading my previous posts should be able to figure out what I'm trying to convey here.
I should know better than to try to argue ethics on the internet. Sigh.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
I'll take the OPs word at what he says. Maybe just needs to be clearer because some seem confused.
I don't understand why original seller, who is now a buyer, is obligated at that point to explain his reasons for wanting to buy it back. Certainly the auction winner could ask, but as I see it, the now buyer is under no obligation to explain his reasons. The knowledge that the now buyer has of someone willing to pay $1,500 is his "property" to keep, sell, give away, or disclose and use in a negotiation to purchase the book as he sees fit.
I just want to say, that if I were in the seller's position, I would have ignored the original email from the buyer at $1,500. Once an auction is over, I'm done with it. It's not worth the hassle and risk to me.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I'm def not taking sides. I don't think all the facts are here. Buut.. In the real world, I think if the buyer at $500 knew someone wanted it at $1500, hed either want it to sell it himself for $1-1500, or he'd say give me a cut of the $1000 difference. >>
Thank you. Someone gets it.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Also, since it was an auction, you cannot conclude that the item would have been paid for prior to Mullins contacting the buyer. On that point, I am clearly being nitpicky.
Um...yeah, I actually CAN conclude that the item was paid for prior to the deal offer. From Mullins' own post in fact: "I contacted the winner and proposed that I give them a refund and give them, for free, the same book but in a lower grade." So the item had obviously been paid for- otherwise no refund offer would be necessary! >>
You are correct. My bad. Also, my intent with the nitpicky comment was to be funny. I should have put a winking emoticon after it. If it came off as snarky or condescending, I apologize.
<< <i>I'm not trying to foment some massive argument here but frankly if nothing else the circumstantial evidence suggests that the original buyer had no clue about the offer and that the seller had no intention of enlightening him.
IN-MY-OPINION.
To be clear, I also never said that the seller was obligated to give the buyer the name of the person making the offer...however, I related a personal experience where that is what I did personally.
I think I'll make this my last post about this...we're straying from my main point anyway (that the deal was done when the $500 changed hands), and anyone reading my previous posts should be able to figure out what I'm trying to convey here.
I should know better than to try to argue ethics on the internet. Sigh. >>
I agree with the fact that the deal was done after the $500 changed hands.
<< <i><< I'm def not taking sides. I don't think all the facts are here. Buut.. In the real world, I think if the buyer at $500 knew someone wanted it at $1500, hed either want it to sell it himself for $1-1500, or he'd say give me a cut of the $1000 difference. >>
Thank you. Someone gets it. >>
I get that, too.
I also can see, Mullins explaining that he had a child on the way and someone else offered significantly more money after the auction ended, followed with a proposal of completing the transaction or sending a lesser condition copy for free. The buyer could have been compassionate, desired the book in any condition, or is not an Ebay seller (indifferent to flipping it for a profit or not willing to go through the effort). Regardless, the buyer could have just seen the situation as getting what they wanted for free and been happy with that.
I am in agreement that he was ethically bound to ship the item that was sold.
That should not preclude him from making an offer to send the other book for free as long as he provided both options to the buyer. The only reason I brought it up was that it appeared to be assumed that Mullins did not offer to complete the transaction with the buyer. Either way, we don't know how the transaction went.
Anyhow, the main reason I posted was to point out the racist slur used by the "seller" mentioned by the OP.
This event is pure speculation as there is nothing yet in this thread to suggest it went down this way. With that said, in the situation you described here where the buyer hasn't yet taken possession of the item and the seller uses that as leverage, then I completely agree a wrong would be committed.
The uncertainty as to the full set of facts is the reason why I qualified my opinion by saying I don't see where a violation of ethics occurredbased on the facts known at this time.
Edited to add: In a situation where we don't know all the facts, what is the harm in assuming the best of Mullins in this situation? Why is it that some would rather take a cynical view and assume the worst? That's what I don't get. BTW, I don't know Mullins from Adam and have had no prior dealings with him.