As you might have figured out my company bought quite a few of these from many people including BST people. I would NEVER even think about holding anyone to the transaction if their order cancelled. We do check however and several people have been caught in lies. A handfull of others have used various methods to back out and we've made it clear we're not OK with it and it will tarnish their name in our book which does matter. George and Jason handled our BST purchases and many have already been paid but after thinking about it I agree with wondercoin and want to volantarily make a bonus payment to those honorable people who understand the importance of keeping your word and a deal. So if you confirmed on the BST and you've already been paid email me direct at john@moderncoinmart.com and I'll give you a little pre holiday cheer. If you havent shipped yet send a note with the coins asking for the John Maben thank you bonus.
Thanks, John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>Our hosts made it perfectly clear that there will be no outing of anyone for bad deals. It is unfortunate that renegers will get away "free", but i enjoy these boards, and intend to stay on them.
And I did what i could do assist most of my buyers, some wouldnt budge on their deals at all--saying a deal was a deal, period. And some i hope to meet someday and take to dinner. >>
Hecck.. I'm someone that sent you sets that I commited to you..... and if we meet I'll buy the drinks! Too many here that are beyond their comfort level. Strech to spend the $1500. on 5 sets and have starry eyes when looking at $4K if they back out... Shame,shame,shame! >>
+1
BST references: jdimmick;Gerard;wondercoin;claychaser;agentjim007;CCC2010;guitarwes;TAMU15;Zubie;mariner67;segoja;Smittys;kaz;CARDSANDCOINS;FadeToBlack; jrt103;tizofthe;bronze6827;mkman;Scootersdad;AllCoinsRule;coindeuce;dmarks;piecesofme; and many more
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them! >>
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, 2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult 3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) "
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them! >>
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, 2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult 3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Just proves the Shirap the PROFESSORS are spewing and in no way addresses the issue of a commitment..... you can practice what your PROFESSOR taught you all you life.... See where that will gets you or anyone in business.
<< <i>an unsigned promise to conduct business in the future is not a contract. It is a gentlemen's agreement that should be honored but cannot be upheld in a court of law.
It can be weighed in a court of public opinion, but only if the public is allowed to be informed about those that do not honor their agreement. >>
This is true.. however I would change the second line to read.... It can be weighed in a court of public/private opinion, but only if the public is allowed to be or the private chooses too be informed about those that do not honor their agreement.
This is the way many if not most professionals operate..... so good luck to those whom backed out of a commiment... You can hide behind the legal side of it but not the reality of it!
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them! >>
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, 2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult 3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Most of these go over without a hitch. As I said earlier, it is safest to spell out exactly what both sides are agreeing to. If failure of the mint to fulfill the order is grounds to cancel, that should be stated explicitly. What if the package gets lost or stolen? Are you obligated to provide the sets then, even if it means purchasing them for twice issue price?
Perhaps PCGS should disallow any posting on the BST which could be construed as requiring contractual obligations on the part of either the buyer or seller. If you want to offer to buy coin/s X for Y dollars fine. Any conditions implied or required for such offers should be done in private and not on the BST board.
I had a seller performance issue a while back(33 yrs ago). Seller agreed to sell me a 4plex...I made arrangements to get loan and get down payment ...seller changed mind at last minute....my attorney drew up the lawsuit for specific performance ..sent it to seller...with a 30 day delay on filing...and seller returned to sanity, came back to escrow and closed. I do believe you can force a seller to sell if you have a valid contract.
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist.
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them! >>
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract, 2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult 3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Just proves the Shirap the PROFESSORS are spewing and in no way addresses the issue of a commitment..... you can practice what your PROFESSOR taught you all you life.... See where that will gets you or anyone in business. >>
Sorry I thought I was being very clear when I was explaining how this concept works but let me try to make it more clear, perhaps my wording was off. Generally you can't contract for something you dont OWN. I think my "have" wording may have been confusing. If you are not sure what a future's contract is, here is the definition.
A futures contract is a standardized contract between two parties to exchange a specified asset of standardized quantity and quality for a price agreed today (the futures price or the strike price) with delivery occurring at a specified future date, the delivery date.
In futures contracts the delivery date is gauranteed, and the product is on hand. The point I was trying to make is that since the seller does not own the sets until they arive from the mint, at that point he can make a valid contract. Prior to that there is no guarantee that he will even get the sets just because he has an order with the mint. This is the same reason you can't go suing the mint for canceling your order because you claim you had a valid contract. So for example, I could not contract to sell YOUR car, since I don't own it. Same way I cant sell Somebody else's ASE Sets if I havent taken physical ownership. Hope that makes it clearer. Not saying this should be an excuse to fall through on your obligations, but in this particular situation that would be the way it would happen.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700. Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit??
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700. Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
I think you would have a valid small claims court here. Since I think any court would likely find that an ebay auction does constitute a valid contract. Your situation differs from the one in question in this thread because if all you have is an exchange of emails, a court would be less likely to find a valid contract because its hard to authenticate emails and prove who wrote them, especially if multiple people had access to a computer. Since you actually have a bargain for exchange which is documented through ebay, this would be a situation where you could recover. I would file a small courts claims, if the seller is in a different state and you file it in your county and they fail to show up, you will probably get a default judgment, and it would be easy as pie to get. Depends on how much its worth to you to make your point!
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700. Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none. You 'bought' the set for $3700. If after the cancellation, you went back on ebay and the best you could do was find another set for $4000 and you won it, you would essentially be out $300. That's your damages. If you did go to the trouble of suing, you would have a good shot at the $300.
However, situations like this can be a little tricky. In a couple months, you might be able to buy one of these sets for $3500. In that case, you would actually be $200 ahead. Any plans you had for flipping after you bought the $3700 set are too speculative and would not increase your damages.
<< <i>Perhaps PCGS should disallow any posting on the BST which could be construed as requiring contractual obligations on the part of either the buyer or seller. If you want to offer to buy coin/s X for Y dollars fine. Any conditions implied or required for such offers should be done in private and not on the BST board. >>
I agree 100%.
I think PCGS should address this issue.
The BST is not a futures market.
Allowing these "contracts via private message agreements using the CU forum" is not where PCGS should be, I think.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700. Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
I think you would have a valid small claims court here. Since I think any court would likely find that an ebay auction does constitute a valid contract. Your situation differs from the one in question in this thread because if all you have is an exchange of emails, a court would be less likely to find a valid contract because its hard to authenticate emails and prove who wrote them, especially if multiple people had access to a computer. Since you actually have a bargain for exchange which is documented through ebay, this would be a situation where you could recover. I would file a small courts claims, if the seller is in a different state and you file it in your county and they fail to show up, you will probably get a default judgment, and it would be easy as pie to get. Depends on how much its worth to you to make your point! >>
It is not just an exchange of emails. There is notice from seller and Ebay that I won the auction. There is proof of Paypal payment for coins. There is proof coins were later resold AFTER receiving payment.
<< <i>I had a seller performance issue a while back(33 yrs ago). Seller agreed to sell me a 4plex...I made arrangements to get loan and get down payment ...seller changed mind at last minute....my attorney drew up the lawsuit for specific performance ..sent it to seller...with a 30 day delay on filing...and seller returned to sanity, came back to escrow and closed. I do believe you can force a seller to sell if you have a valid contract.
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist. >>
To get a loan you needed a sales contract. A signed sales contract is not the same as BST promise. BST promises are based on honoring an agreement and in the past failure to do so was shared with all forum members. Now that we don't have that hanging over the heads of those that welch, expect more welching in the future.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
<< <i>If you enter into a contract to unconditionally sell to Joe Barnes for a set price an item [25th ASE set, car, etc.] that you do not own/possess at the time you enter the contract, if you fail to perform the contract Joe Barnes can sue you for breach of contract and recover from you the damages your breach of the contract has caused him.
If you defended by claiming that you were not able to perform because you were unable to acquire the item you contracted to sell [i.e. because the mint cancelled your order], tough nuggies for you. You will lose.
Whether it makes economic sense to sue is another matter given the time money and effort required to do so. >>
What are the "magic words" in PM exchanges that make the planned BST transaction an enforceable "contract?"
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
A handfull of others have used various methods to back out and we've made it clear we're not OK with it and it will tarnish their name in our book which does matter.
That's about the most that one can practically do in the circumstances--not do business with the party in the future.
<< <i>I had a seller performance issue a while back(33 yrs ago). Seller agreed to sell me a 4plex...I made arrangements to get loan and get down payment ...seller changed mind at last minute....my attorney drew up the lawsuit for specific performance ..sent it to seller...with a 30 day delay on filing...and seller returned to sanity, came back to escrow and closed. I do believe you can force a seller to sell if you have a valid contract.
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist. >>
To get a loan you needed a sales contract. A signed sales contract is not the same as BST promise. BST promises are based on honoring an agreement and in the past failure to do so was shared with all forum members. Now that we don't have that hanging over the heads of those that welch, expect more welching in the future. >>
Usually word gets around about those who aren't trustworthy.
>No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
<< <i>>No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
-Keith >>
No his damages are not $500. He's in the same place as he would have been if there had been no sale to begin with. If he goes and buys another one, then he is out the difference between what he paid and what he would have paid if the original seller would have honored the sale. But he can't just sit there as the price rises and in order to watch the potential damages rise. With this type of item in this type of market, he'd probably have to buy pretty quickly after receiving notice of the cancellation.
<< <i>Dont you just love all the arm chair lawyers and judges! Very comical.... dont quit your day jobs. >>
It's a riot. They don't think there is any such thing as a oral contract. One GED thought you need to pay something before there is a binding contract. LMAO.
<< <i>All dealers stated and made sure to specify that the sets must be sealed for the deal to be good.
If anyone opened up the set the deal is theoretically null and void. (I believe a forum member mentioned his father opened one?) >>
Considering what they are selling for do you think they'd actually turned down an open set. You committed a sealed set and the mint sent you one. If someone opens it, trade it for a sealed set and honor your deal.
I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners.
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
What? So he basically tried a bluff - extorting more money thinking you would tell him to go pound sand - and when you agree to his demands - he admitted he didn't even have the set anymore?
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
That is truly one of the most pathetic tales of greed and unscrupulous behavior I have ever heard of.
"word gets around" as someone previously posted.
JMO
Successful trades/buys/sells with gdavis70, adriana, wondercoin, Weiss, nibanny, IrishMike, commoncents05, pf70collector, kyleknap, barefootjuan, coindeuce, WhiteTornado, Nefprollc, ajw, JamesM, PCcoins, slinc, coindudeonebay,beernuts, and many more
<< <i>>No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
-Keith >>
No his damages are not $500. He's in the same place as he would have been if there had been no sale to begin with. If he goes and buys another one, then he is out the difference between what he paid and what he would have paid if the original seller would have honored the sale. But he can't just sit there as the price rises and in order to watch the potential damages rise. With this type of item in this type of market, he'd probably have to buy pretty quickly after receiving notice of the cancellation. >>
I'm confused.
How could there possibly be ANY damages if someone decides that they do not want to sell? Exactly what "damage" was incurred other than getting their feelings hurt?
Someitmes I think folks take this stuff too seriously.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
Amazing, did you post his name somewhere, or if you are leary about putting up the name, please PM
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
Amazing, did you post his name somewhere, or if you are leary about putting up the name, please PM >>
PM me the name as well
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
Ebay, in their zeal to protect buyers, ended up screwing a lot of buyers who thought they had bought sets for $400 each or so. Just another demonstration of how eBay doesn't understand numismatics. --Jerry
<< <i>Ebay, in their zeal to protect buyers, ended up screwing a lot of buyers who thought they had bought sets for $400 each or so. Just another demonstration of how eBay doesn't understand numismatics. --Jerry >>
Good point, I had never heard the end of that story, did ebay cancel the sales that did occur and force refunds?
<< <i>Our hosts made it perfectly clear that there will be no outing of anyone for bad deals. It is unfortunate that renegers will get away "free", but i enjoy these boards, and intend to stay on them.
And I did what i could do assist most of my buyers, some wouldnt budge on their deals at all--saying a deal was a deal, period. And some i hope to meet someday and take to dinner. >>
Integerity is what one has when holding up their end of a deal (words matter). Any actions taken subsequent to that lacks integrity, and at a minimum : tact.
Nothing more than a scare tactic, I highly doubt anyone will get sued and most lawyers would just say do you really want to pursue this over $2000 that you are losing? Looks like alot of these national coin companies that thought they had hundreds of sets coming at $385 each aren't seeing anything. I bet the excuses are all over the place from someone stole it off my porch, to someone broke in and ransacked my house, to the order never came even thoguh I paid for it. LOL I don't mind capitalism, but I know alot of people on this and other boards have to be pissed that some of these national coin companies spam email boxes trying to gather foot soldiers to order 5 sets as opposed to 1 set, so they can sell them their remaining 4. Of course, this recruitment of foot soldiers to indirectly circumvent the 5 per hh limit does take away supply from the true collectors that really want them for themselves, so I can see how many here would be laughing at these companies not getting their $375 agreed upon price.
<< <i>The entire purchase and contract is based on a mint order, if the mint order is not shipped then there is no contract. >>
I will say it AGAIN. Make sure that you understand EXACTLY what you are agreeing to. A mint order shipped but later lost in transit or stolen DOES NOT relieve you of your obligation to deliver as agreed to. At least that is how I would interpret the deals presented here [and the statement quoted].
I'm not going to comment on the validity of contracts here ... don't know for sure anyway.
The whole thing is surreal to me as I missed ordering any, so I have not dog in this race. If I had, I wouldn't have pre-sold anyway as I don't play futures. I did ask a friend to sell me one after he recieved if the prices were not to crazy, but we haven't entered any agreements, and frankly, the prices are now too crazy ... at least for me.
HOWEVER:
I would personally appreciate a PM from anyone who I know that had a deal like this (or similar backing out/extortion tactics), with a short explaination and the name of other party.
I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners.
As always, my PM's are private matters, so this would just be between friends.
A man's word is his honor ... and I would prefer not to deal with people who have no honor.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
<< <i>The entire purchase and contract is based on a mint order, if the mint order is not shipped then there is no contract. >>
I will say it AGAIN. Make sure that you understand EXACTLY what you are agreeing to. A mint order shipped but later lost in transit or stolen DOES NOT relieve you of your obligation to deliver as agreed to. At least that is how I would interpret the deals presented here [and the statement quoted]. >>
They laid out the terms on their website in great length, and I don't see where it says if the mint cancels an order you still owe us. But I have no stake in this, only my opinion.
Comments
Thanks,
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
<< <i>
<< <i>Our hosts made it perfectly clear that there will be no outing of anyone for bad deals. It is unfortunate that renegers will get away "free", but i enjoy these boards, and intend to stay on them.
And I did what i could do assist most of my buyers, some wouldnt budge on their deals at all--saying a deal was a deal, period. And some i hope to meet someday and take to dinner. >>
Hecck.. I'm someone that sent you sets that I commited to you..... and if we meet I'll buy the drinks! Too many here that are beyond their comfort level. Strech to spend the $1500. on 5 sets and have starry eyes when looking at $4K if they back out... Shame,shame,shame!
+1
jdimmick;Gerard;wondercoin;claychaser;agentjim007;CCC2010;guitarwes;TAMU15;Zubie;mariner67;segoja;Smittys;kaz;CARDSANDCOINS;FadeToBlack;
jrt103;tizofthe;bronze6827;mkman;Scootersdad;AllCoinsRule;coindeuce;dmarks;piecesofme; and many more
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them!
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) "
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them!
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Just proves the Shirap the PROFESSORS are spewing and in no way addresses the issue of a commitment..... you can practice what your PROFESSOR taught you all you life.... See where that will gets you or anyone in business.
<< <i>an unsigned promise to conduct business in the future is not a contract. It is a gentlemen's agreement that should be honored but cannot be upheld in a court of law.
It can be weighed in a court of public opinion, but only if the public is allowed to be informed about those that do not honor their agreement.
This is true.. however I would change the second line to read....
It can be weighed in a court of public/private opinion, but only if the public is allowed to be or the private chooses too be informed about those that do not honor their agreement.
This is the way many if not most professionals operate..... so good luck to those whom backed out of a commiment... You can hide behind the legal side of it but not the reality of it!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them!
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Most of these go over without a hitch. As I said earlier, it is safest to spell out exactly what both sides are agreeing to. If failure of the mint to fulfill the order is grounds to cancel, that should be stated explicitly. What if the package gets lost or stolen? Are you obligated to provide the sets then, even if it means purchasing them for twice issue price?
Perhaps PCGS should disallow any posting on the BST which could be construed as requiring contractual obligations on the part of either the buyer or seller. If you want to offer to buy coin/s X for Y dollars fine. Any conditions implied or required for such offers should be done in private and not on the BST board.
<< <i>Why would anyone sue anyone over a couple of hundred bucks? >>
To get on TV with Judge Judy!
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> No way a valid contract should be found here im my opinion since the seller did not have the physical sets at the time of the contract, you cant contract for something you don't have! >>
What nonsense you are saying. Ever heard of the futures market, or short selling? >>
Yep is called a futures CONTRACT! Well there goes that stupid excuse... now what can he tell the buyerr... my dog ate them!
I was speaking generally when I said you can't contract for something you don't have. This is a principle my contracts professor often repeated. However, there are always exceptions especially when dealing with contracts. The court would look at a number of different factors and in the case of the highly specialized situations you all were suggesting like farmers contracting out their corn are indeed contracts but in these situations there would most likely be a signed document which would lend support to a valid contract. There is not a signed document stipulating each sides obligations but merely an email exchange here and that is the major weakness of a potential suit. Here is the definition for impracticability which would probably be the defense to use here since the seller does have an obligation to deliver the coins but since his order was canceled, it would be prohibitively expenisve to follow through with the contract.
"Impracticability in the common law of contracts excuses performance of a duty, where that duty has become unfeasibly difficult or expensive for the party who was to perform.
Typically, the test U.S. courts use for impracticability is as follows (with a few variations between jurisdictions)"
1. There must be an occurrence of a condition, the nonoccurrence of which was a basic assumption of the contract,
2. The occurrence must make performance extremely expensive or difficult
3. This difficulty was not anticipated by the parties to the contract (note: some jurisdictions require that there be no measure within the contract itself to allocate risk between the parties) " >>
Just proves the Shirap the PROFESSORS are spewing and in no way addresses the issue of a commitment..... you can practice what your PROFESSOR taught you all you life.... See where that will gets you or anyone in business.
Sorry I thought I was being very clear when I was explaining how this concept works but let me try to make it more clear, perhaps my wording was off. Generally you can't contract for something you dont OWN. I think my "have" wording may have been confusing. If you are not sure what a future's contract is, here is the definition.
A futures contract is a standardized contract between two parties to exchange a specified asset of standardized quantity and quality for a price agreed today (the futures price or the strike price) with delivery occurring at a specified future date, the delivery date.
In futures contracts the delivery date is gauranteed, and the product is on hand.
The point I was trying to make is that since the seller does not own the sets until they arive from the mint, at that point he can make a valid contract. Prior to that there is no guarantee that he will even get the sets just because he has an order with the mint. This is the same reason you can't go suing the mint for canceling your order because you claim you had a valid contract. So for example, I could not contract to sell YOUR car, since I don't own it. Same way I cant sell Somebody else's ASE Sets if I havent taken physical ownership. Hope that makes it clearer. Not saying this should be an excuse to fall through on your obligations, but in this particular situation that would be the way it would happen.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700.
Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit??
<< <i>Small claims cout might be your best bet.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700.
Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
I think you would have a valid small claims court here. Since I think any court would likely find that an ebay auction does constitute a valid contract. Your situation differs from the one in question in this thread because if all you have is an exchange of emails, a court would be less likely to find a valid contract because its hard to authenticate emails and prove who wrote them, especially if multiple people had access to a computer. Since you actually have a bargain for exchange which is documented through ebay, this would be a situation where you could recover. I would file a small courts claims, if the seller is in a different state and you file it in your county and they fail to show up, you will probably get a default judgment, and it would be easy as pie to get. Depends on how much its worth to you to make your point!
<< <i>Small claims cout might be your best bet.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700.
Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
You 'bought' the set for $3700. If after the cancellation, you went back on ebay and the best you could do was find another set for $4000 and you won it, you would essentially be out $300. That's your damages. If you did go to the trouble of suing, you would have a good shot at the $300.
However, situations like this can be a little tricky. In a couple months, you might be able to buy one of these sets for $3500. In that case, you would actually be $200 ahead. Any plans you had for flipping after you bought the $3700 set are too speculative and would not increase your damages.
<< <i>Perhaps PCGS should disallow any posting on the BST which could be construed as requiring contractual obligations on the part of either the buyer or seller. If you want to offer to buy coin/s X for Y dollars fine. Any conditions implied or required for such offers should be done in private and not on the BST board. >>
I agree 100%.
I think PCGS should address this issue.
The BST is not a futures market.
Allowing these "contracts via private message agreements using the CU forum" is not where PCGS should be, I think.
<< <i>
<< <i>Small claims cout might be your best bet.
I'm considering this for a Ebay seller you sold me a sealed box of 5 sets last week for $3700.
Recieved immediate payment but delayed shipping and relisted coins(or at least same picture) selling them for $4200.
Only after second sale of my coins for $4200 did he contack me to say he could not complete the deal.
Ebay/Paypal and emails records are clear.........I wonder if small claims would award me the $500 ill gotten profit?? >>
I think you would have a valid small claims court here. Since I think any court would likely find that an ebay auction does constitute a valid contract. Your situation differs from the one in question in this thread because if all you have is an exchange of emails, a court would be less likely to find a valid contract because its hard to authenticate emails and prove who wrote them, especially if multiple people had access to a computer. Since you actually have a bargain for exchange which is documented through ebay, this would be a situation where you could recover. I would file a small courts claims, if the seller is in a different state and you file it in your county and they fail to show up, you will probably get a default judgment, and it would be easy as pie to get. Depends on how much its worth to you to make your point! >>
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................
It is not just an exchange of emails.
There is notice from seller and Ebay that I won the auction.
There is proof of Paypal payment for coins.
There is proof coins were later resold AFTER receiving payment.
<< <i>I had a seller performance issue a while back(33 yrs ago). Seller agreed to sell me a 4plex...I made arrangements to get loan and get down payment ...seller changed mind at last minute....my attorney drew up the lawsuit for specific performance ..sent it to seller...with a 30 day delay on filing...and seller returned to sanity, came back to escrow and closed. I do believe you can force a seller to sell if you have a valid contract.
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist. >>
To get a loan you needed a sales contract. A signed sales contract is not the same as BST promise. BST promises are based on honoring an agreement and in the past failure to do so was shared with all forum members. Now that we don't have that hanging over the heads of those that welch, expect more welching in the future.
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
<< <i>If you enter into a contract to unconditionally sell to Joe Barnes for a set price an item [25th ASE set, car, etc.] that you do not own/possess at the time you enter the contract, if you fail to perform the contract Joe Barnes can sue you for breach of contract and recover from you the damages your breach of the contract has caused him.
If you defended by claiming that you were not able to perform because you were unable to acquire the item you contracted to sell [i.e. because the mint cancelled your order], tough nuggies for you. You will lose.
Whether it makes economic sense to sue is another matter given the time money and effort required to do so. >>
What are the "magic words" in PM exchanges that make the planned BST transaction an enforceable "contract?"
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
A handfull of others have used various methods to back out and we've made it clear we're not OK with it and it will tarnish their name in our book which does matter.
That's about the most that one can practically do in the circumstances--not do business with the party in the future.
<< <i>
<< <i>I had a seller performance issue a while back(33 yrs ago). Seller agreed to sell me a 4plex...I made arrangements to get loan and get down payment ...seller changed mind at last minute....my attorney drew up the lawsuit for specific performance ..sent it to seller...with a 30 day delay on filing...and seller returned to sanity, came back to escrow and closed. I do believe you can force a seller to sell if you have a valid contract.
But for a couple of coins? Geesh. The market makers who get tough on this are going to just give themselves a black eye with their own fist. >>
To get a loan you needed a sales contract. A signed sales contract is not the same as BST promise. BST promises are based on honoring an agreement and in the past failure to do so was shared with all forum members. Now that we don't have that hanging over the heads of those that welch, expect more welching in the future. >>
Usually word gets around about those who aren't trustworthy.
<< <i>Usually word gets around about those who aren't trustworthy. >>
As it should.
Amen.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
-Keith
<< <i>>No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
-Keith >>
No his damages are not $500. He's in the same place as he would have been if there had been no sale to begin with. If he goes and buys another one, then he is out the difference between what he paid and what he would have paid if the original seller would have honored the sale. But he can't just sit there as the price rises and in order to watch the potential damages rise. With this type of item in this type of market, he'd probably have to buy pretty quickly after receiving notice of the cancellation.
Dont you just love all the arm chair lawyers and judges! Very comical.... dont quit your day jobs.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
"Judge Fish. You break the law, you don't ride in his bass boat..." "Tune in at 11:00, for the case of the missing brown box!"
<< <i>Dont you just love all the arm chair lawyers and judges! Very comical.... dont quit your day jobs.
It's a riot. They don't think there is any such thing as a oral contract. One GED thought you need to pay something before there is a binding contract. LMAO.
<< <i>All dealers stated and made sure to specify that the sets must be sealed for the deal to be good.
If anyone opened up the set the deal is theoretically null and void. (I believe a forum member mentioned his father opened one?) >>
Considering what they are selling for do you think they'd actually turned down an open set. You committed a sealed set and the mint sent you one. If someone opens it, trade it for a sealed set and honor your deal.
<< <i>Dont you just love all the arm chair lawyers and judges! Very comical.... dont quit your day jobs.
You don't need to be a lawyer to read, use a little common sense and CYA.
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
What? So he basically tried a bluff - extorting more money thinking you would tell him to go pound sand - and when you agree to his demands - he admitted he didn't even have the set anymore?
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
That is truly one of the most pathetic tales of greed and unscrupulous behavior I have ever heard of.
"word gets around" as someone previously posted.
JMO
<< <i>
<< <i>>No you would not get the $500 profit. What are your damages here? Right now, none.
Um, your damages are the $500. You paid $3700. Evidently the current price is $4200. To prove that in court, just buy one! There you go, you've incurred damages.
-Keith >>
No his damages are not $500. He's in the same place as he would have been if there had been no sale to begin with. If he goes and buys another one, then he is out the difference between what he paid and what he would have paid if the original seller would have honored the sale. But he can't just sit there as the price rises and in order to watch the potential damages rise. With this type of item in this type of market, he'd probably have to buy pretty quickly after receiving notice of the cancellation. >>
I'm confused.
How could there possibly be ANY damages if someone decides that they do not want to sell? Exactly what "damage" was incurred other than getting their feelings hurt?
Someitmes I think folks take this stuff too seriously.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
Amazing, did you post his name somewhere, or if you are leary about putting up the name, please PM
<< <i>
<< <i>I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners. >>
Amazing, did you post his name somewhere, or if you are leary about putting up the name, please PM >>
PM me the name as well
Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Bastiat
<< <i>Ebay, in their zeal to protect buyers, ended up screwing a lot of buyers who thought they had bought sets for $400 each or so. Just another demonstration of how eBay doesn't understand numismatics. --Jerry >>
Good point, I had never heard the end of that story, did ebay cancel the sales that did occur and force refunds?
San Diego, CA
<< <i>Our hosts made it perfectly clear that there will be no outing of anyone for bad deals. It is unfortunate that renegers will get away "free", but i enjoy these boards, and intend to stay on them.
And I did what i could do assist most of my buyers, some wouldnt budge on their deals at all--saying a deal was a deal, period. And some i hope to meet someday and take to dinner. >>
We still have the PM system.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
The prospect of getting sued by not being able to sell what you haven't got, reminds me of an old saying that I heard somewhere...
"It's nothing personal, It's just business!"
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>The entire purchase and contract is based on a mint order, if the mint order is not shipped then there is no contract. >>
I will say it AGAIN. Make sure that you understand EXACTLY what you are agreeing to. A mint order shipped but later lost in transit or stolen DOES NOT relieve you of your obligation to deliver as agreed to. At least that is how I would interpret the deals presented here [and the statement quoted].
The whole thing is surreal to me as I missed ordering any, so I have not dog in this race. If I had, I wouldn't have pre-sold anyway as I don't play futures. I did ask a friend to sell me one after he recieved if the prices were not to crazy, but we haven't entered any agreements, and frankly, the prices are now too crazy ... at least for me.
HOWEVER:
I would personally appreciate a PM from anyone who I know that had a deal like this (or similar backing out/extortion tactics), with a short explaination and the name of other party.
I just had a board member tell me he was raising the already agreed upon price an additional 35%, and when i agreed, he said too late already, he had already sold my case to someone else for 5% above the renegotiated price. Hard to believe, but yup--money makes some folks forget their manners.
As always, my PM's are private matters, so this would just be between friends.
A man's word is his honor ... and I would prefer not to deal with people who have no honor.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>The entire purchase and contract is based on a mint order, if the mint order is not shipped then there is no contract. >>
I will say it AGAIN. Make sure that you understand EXACTLY what you are agreeing to. A mint order shipped but later lost in transit or stolen DOES NOT relieve you of your obligation to deliver as agreed to. At least that is how I would interpret the deals presented here [and the statement quoted]. >>
They laid out the terms on their website in great length, and I don't see where it says if the mint cancels an order you still owe us. But I have no stake in this, only my opinion.
Linky agreement
Paid immediately.
Guy said he would ship asap. He actually relisted with a 3 day auction at $4200 BIN
When it sold he canceled my sale with some lame excuse about Ebay discount.
We exchanged several messages where he basically said "neg me.........so what"
I notified Ebay security.............raised holy hell........pointed out fraud...............he got booted!!
Yup.....no longer a resistered user. Plus funds are frozen on second sale!!
If he ever gets reinstated I will help him get started with a big large cap NEGATIVE.
1,500 power seller lost it all because he thought he could cheat some unknown buyer out of $500.