B/S/T Etiquette

[OhioLawyerF5]

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

[CardPadre]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

I didn't see anything about offers in the original post, seemed he just wanted to buy a card that was for sale.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I didn't see anything about offers in the original post, seemed he just wanted to buy a card that was for sale.

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer. I don't really have time to explain all the nuance of contract law, but that's the gist. Which is why I used the term offer. It's a legal term that applies even if the seller wasn't open to negotiate. But it's important to understand so people don't mistakenly think that they have a right to the item just because they agree to the listed price. They don't. They can just make an offer to pay that price. Seller has no obligation to accept every offer to pay their price, even if they are first.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer. I don't really have time to explain all the nuance of contract law, but that's the gist. Which is why I used the term offer. It's a legal term that applies even if the seller wasn't open to negotiate. But it's important to understand so people don't mistakenly think that they have a right to the item just because they agree to the listed price. They don't. They can just make an offer to pay that price. Seller has no obligation to accept every offer to pay their price, even if they are first.

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

I mean it’s irrelevant since I sold the cards to the first person who asked for it which was 30mins before the OP Dm’d me and posted on the thread. Which I told him through DM’s. He wasn’t even in 2nd


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

I see no reason to get upset by a seller exercising his right. If it's proper etiquette to require a seller to accept the first offer (which I disagree with), it should also be proper etiquette to not whine when the seller doesn't sell to you. That's a bigger breach of etiquette to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I see no reason to get upset by a seller exercising his right. If it's proper etiquette to require a seller to accept the first offer (which I disagree with), it should also be proper etiquette to not whine when the seller doesn't sell to you. That's a bigger breach of etiquette to me.

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

I just don't think people should bring emotion into business. So, doing what you have a right to do is your prerogative and not a breach of etiquette.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

Correct and that’s what I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bk400]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

I agree. In most (perhaps all, but not 100% sure) US states, there is no legal duty to warn a blind kid who is about to dive into an empty swimming pool. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it anyway.

As people living in an actual community, we go above and beyond -- and sometimes even break -- the stated law all the time.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer.

Ugghhhh. The law is therefore written with misleading and thus poor terminology. (Lawyers aren't known for being good writers.)

On the stock market sellers "offer" stock at a certain price. Buyers can take the offerings or "bid" a lower price. Any sellers are then free to hit the bid. Stock prices are therefore always in a state of unstable equilibrium, i.e. a stock's current price is where there's an equal amount of supply and demand but this can change at any moment.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Ugghhhh. The law is therefore written with misleading and thus poor terminology. (Lawyers aren't known for being good writers.)



On the stock market sellers "offer" stock at a certain price. Buyers can take the offerings or "bid" a lower price. Any sellers are then free to hit the bid. Stock prices are therefore always in an unstable equilibrium, i.e. a stock's current price is where there's an equal amount of supply and demand but this can change at any moment.

It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.

Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't.

P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world.

[Pato15]

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Pato15

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

This happens all the time in the housing market. No one seems to have a problem with it.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Pato15

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

Not me. I'd take the higher offer.

We aren't talking about a kidney for transplant - we're talking about highly non-essential collectibles.

[timn1]

I'm not a lawyer but your explanation makes perfect sense to me - some people are never going to be convinced of anything, though.

Also, the scenario of preventing the blind kid diving into the empty pool seems like a comically bad analogy for the selling of a sports card....

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.

Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't.

P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by timn1

Also, the scenario of preventing the blind kid diving into the empty pool seems like a comically bad analogy for the selling of a sports card....

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

[gregndodgers]

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

[Peter_Spaeth]

In a BST post, who is the offeree? For an offer to be binding upon acceptance, you need an offeree, as I understand it. Otherwise, like an advertisement, it's an invitation to treat/invitation to bargain. The specificity of the post is not the point.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.



Greg

I'll post the case law when I get a chance. I'm going to need to see your citations, because that is most definitely not the general principle of contract law. Only if there is a specific local statute that modifies the common law will that be the case, or if there is a specific term in the listing stating an intent to sell to the first taker. There is no "meeting of the minds" in your example that is required for a contract. Posting a listing to a broad, general audience does not put the seller in privity of contract with everyone who reads it. The buyer must express their intent to contract, and the seller must agree to contract with that specific person. In your example, the seller has never entered into contract with that buyer, and no contract was formed.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Here's some of the landmark cases:

Fisher v. Bell (1961) and Partridge v. Crittenden (1968) set forth the longstanding principle that posting or advertising an item for sale is an "invitation to treat" and not an "offer to sell."

The cases you are referring to are Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) and All Phases of Services Ltd v Johnson (2014). They suggest that what is usually an invitation to treat can become an offer to sell IF the advertisment clearly indicates and intent to be bound, and the intentions of both parties are clear and agreed upon, demonstrated through the conduct of the parties involved.

So as I said, posting a card for sale, with a price, is a invitation to treat and not an offer UNLESS the listing clearly states that the first person to accept will get the card.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Well, I don't know law and am not a lawyer, but that is not what this private forum's rules are. First dibs is almost always the case, but not always. Sellers here can sell to whomever they want to, or don't want to. They can even back out of a deal they said ok to. (as long as they don't make it a habit). Pretty simple.
.
.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

This post is contrary to the Uniform Commercial Code and its distinction between a binding sales contract and an "invitation to offer."

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Hey look! I can do it to.

This statement is so far off based it isn't funny. It has no basis in contract law and is false. Material terms being included in a sales listing does not turn it into an offer. It must also include a clear statement of intent to be bound.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts.

You'd be losing a lot of money mixing up offers=pink sell tickets and bids=blue buy tickets working in a stock brokerage. It's your error, you eat it. Your firm does not. (Unless you quit of course and even then your firm will still take any loss out of any salary owing to you.)

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer.

That's not consistent with another detail that has the force of law in many jurisdictions including my own. If there are two price tags on an item, the retailer MUST honour the lower price tag at the cash register. In other words, the price tags are treated as the retailer's offer to sell under the law.

[timn1]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

Exactly - until a seller accepts a definite offer that you made him, he can sell to whomever he wants - If multiple cards are involved, it might make all the sense in the world to sell to someone willing to by more than one, even if their offer on "your" card might be lower.

[Casey2296]

-
I'll always post "I'll take it" in the thread if I'm paying full price and send a pm to the seller. Puts a time stamp on the sale (if I'm first) and alerts fellow members. It also gives other members the chance to post "I'll be backup".

If I'm offering below list I'll just post "pm sent" and assume the card is fair game until the seller comes to a deal with me or another member.
-

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
I'll always post "I'll take it" in the thread if I'm paying full price and send a pm to the seller. Puts a time stamp on the sale (if I'm first) and alerts fellow members. It also gives other members the chance to post "I'll be backup".

If I'm offering below list I'll just post "pm sent" and assume the card is fair game until the seller comes to a deal with me or another member.
-

You mean it puts a time stamp on your offer, which the seller is free to reject even if for full price and that's apparently fine with some people. Different perspectives, I guess.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean it puts a time stamp on your offer, which the seller is free to reject even if for full price and that's apparently fine with some people. Different perspectives, I guess.

Absolutely. There are some people I don't want to do business with, and I don't care what supposed etiquette suggests, I shouldn't have to. It's just not worth it to deal with some people.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean it puts a time stamp on your offer, which the seller is free to reject even if for full price and that's apparently fine with some people. Different perspectives, I guess.

I am sure there are some you don't want to deal with.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Absolutely. There are some people I don't want to do business with, and I don't care what supposed etiquette suggests, I shouldn't have to. It's just not worth it to deal with some people.

I agree and have been on this forum several years. There are 100% members I would not sell a card to for several times my asking price. I have even straight up told 3 members I will never sell them a card. To be clear this is an extremely rare thing. I have had easily 1000 transactions on here with only a handful being bad.

[clydepepper]

Every quarter, we have a Free Pet Food Pantry behind the local mall. Hundreds of vehicles line up surrounding the entire parking lot....some arriving several hours ahead of the 8AM start time.

Last year, one person finally got to the loading spot and asked what the line was all about...they did not even know...just couldn't resist the possibility of something FREE.

Oh - as far as our current discussion, I don't have anything to add; just wanted to participate.

.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean it puts a time stamp on your offer, which the seller is free to reject even if for full price and that's apparently fine with some people. Different perspectives, I guess.

I suppose, I've never experienced that but it could happen.

B/S/T in my opinion is great and filled with members who treat each other with fairness and respect.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Maybe I'm wrong, but there has seemed to me to be an unwritten Net54 rule that "the first person to claim an item for sale in the BST gets it."

Unless the seller has had bad experiences with that buyer in the past (or has heard about such from others) or is concerned that the buyer is a bot or something, why wouldn't one sell to the first to claim?

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

B/S/T in my opinion is great and filled with members who treat each other with fairness and respect.

Could not agree more with Phil. Just look at my signature below. I wouldn't have the modest collection I have without net54 and the B/S/T.l

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
I'll always post "I'll take it" in the thread if I'm paying full price and send a pm to the seller. Puts a time stamp on the sale (if I'm first) and alerts fellow members. It also gives other members the chance to post "I'll be backup".

If I'm offering below list I'll just post "pm sent" and assume the card is fair game until the seller comes to a deal with me or another member.
-

Phil, what if someone PM'd the seller? It wouldn't be known to anyone but the seller. If the BST ad indicates "first person that posts I'll take it, gets it", then that would seem to make it unambiguous? Perhaps that should be a thing. The first person to post "I'll take it" in the thread should be first in line (assuming they're not trying to negotiate a lower price).

Originally Posted by Casey2296

B/S/T in my opinion is great and filled with members who treat each other with fairness and respect.

This is very true. I've had MANY transactions with buying, selling, and trading and have never had an issue.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Fred

Phil, what if someone PM'd the seller? It wouldn't be known to anyone but the seller. If the BST ad indicates "first person that posts I'll take it, gets it", then that would seem to make it unambiguous? Perhaps that should be a thing. The first person to post "I'll take it" in the thread should be first in line (assuming they're not trying to negotiate a lower price).




This is very true. I've had MANY transactions with buying, selling, and trading and have never had an issue.

When I'm selling something, I prefer to have buyers PM me instead of posting in the listing because I get a notification of a PM, but I have to go to the thread to look for a post. Regardless, a seller should be able to sell to whomever they want. Most of the time, it will be the first person who responded, but if it isn't, I don't see why a seller needs to explain what they did to anyone.

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When I'm selling something, I prefer to have buyers PM me instead of posting in the listing because I get a notification of a PM, but I have to go to the thread to look for a post. Regardless, a seller should be able to sell to whomever they want. Most of the time, it will be the first person who responded, but if it isn't, I don't see why a seller needs to explain what they did to anyone.

Time to grab my dabber, because "BINGO!!"

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

Time to grab my dabber, because "BINGO!!"

I love Net54’s message feature UI. My heart nearly skips a beat when it pops up.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When I'm selling something, I prefer to have buyers PM me instead of posting in the listing because I get a notification of a PM, but I have to go to the thread to look for a post. Regardless, a seller should be able to sell to whomever they want. Most of the time, it will be the first person who responded, but if it isn't, I don't see why a seller needs to explain what they did to anyone.

Well yes, a simple post on the thread without an immediate pm to the seller is not enough and can be confusing, that's why I always follow up with a pm right after the post.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by jayshum

When I'm selling something, I prefer to have buyers PM me instead of posting in the listing because I get a notification of a PM, but I have to go to the thread to look for a post. Regardless, a seller should be able to sell to whomever they want. Most of the time, it will be the first person who responded, but if it isn't, I don't see why a seller needs to explain what they did to anyone.

Yes, this is well said. It might be the exception that the first person doesn't get it, but they aren't entitled to it just for being first, and the seller doesn't need to answer to anyone why they bypassed someone. Etiquette doesn't demand an explanation. Sometimes, not saying anything is more polite.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Fred

Phil, what if someone PM'd the seller? It wouldn't be known to anyone but the seller. If the BST ad indicates "first person that posts I'll take it, gets it", then that would seem to make it unambiguous? Perhaps that should be a thing. The first person to post "I'll take it" in the thread should be first in line (assuming they're not trying to negotiate a lower price).
This is very true. I've had MANY transactions with buying, selling, and trading and have never had an issue.

If someone pmd the seller before I posted I would assume the seller take that persons offer and hand me a e-tissue to wipe my tears for coming second.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
I'll always post "I'll take it" in the thread if I'm paying full price and send a pm to the seller. Puts a time stamp on the sale (if I'm first) and alerts fellow members. It also gives other members the chance to post "I'll be backup".

If I'm offering below list I'll just post "pm sent" and assume the card is fair game until the seller comes to a deal with me or another member.
-

I've done the same thing saying "I'll take it" and It was sold on another platform and they didn't mark it sold. Here' It's just the breaks of the game. You just move on.,BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it.

[toledo_mudhen]

"BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it"

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I've done the same thing saying "I'll take it" and It was sold on another platform and they didn't mark it sold. Here' It's just the breaks of the game. You just move on.,BST is still a great way to buy some really nice stuff. I like it.

I agree. The BST is a great place. I have made lots of buys and sales over the last month. This buy, from there, was from 12/2017,for $2100....I still love looking at it. (I enjoy reasonably well centered cards)

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Leon

I agree. The BST is a great place. I have made lots of buys and sales over the last month. This buy, from there, was from 12/2017,for $2100....I still love looking at it. (I enjoy reasonably well centered cards)

I have a few 1939 Play Ball cards...Joe DiMaggio, Hank Greenberg. So far, the Ted Williams has eluded me. That one is primo!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Which raises a related point. If someone wants to complain publicly about another member/transaction, should they be required to identify it?