Subject:
|
Re: Cancelling orders -- a Brickbay issue
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Sep 2000 13:01:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
D. Jezek <danjezek@REMOVEaloha.net> wrote in message
news:G0M5q7.C7n@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > What made the second order from Spitz invalid? According to your very • own
> > TOS, the seller is still obligated to complete the transaction if it is
> > valid.
>
> I think the only issue Brickbay has in this mess is whether or not to • close
> Clark's shop. It would be too harsch of a punishment to shut down a • seller
> upon a first screw up. It's true that Clark violated the TOS but that • doesn't
> mean that his shop should be shut down since Clark is a responsible seller • and
> this is the first complaint about him.
> I'm leaning towards a rule that sellers should have the right to refuse
> service to anyone and cancelling a transaction is one way of completing • it.
> If noone objects then I'll incorporate it into the TOS.
I'm not sure that what you propose is such a good idea. It's plain from
reading the buyer's post that he wanted the parts, and was willing to
purchase. Intent to buy to me indicates that the buyer was committed to
buying from the seller, even though they knew what condition the second lot
of parts could have come in.
As far as cancelling a transaction, sure, the seller can reserve the right
to do so, but only with the understanding that they take responsibility for
any situations which arise out of cancelling a transaction, and that
Brickbay is not held responsible for such actions. Basically, think along
the lines of those software warranties, and the kind of disclaimer that
comes with things that don't normally have much of a warranty or guarantee.
> > And since neither party actually posted negative feedback about each
> > other, I would not have assumed that it would have made the seller think
> > that the buyer was not satisfied with his LEGO that he received.
>
> That's what most people would think but some people seem to think in a
> different way than others.
Strangely enough, one could almost ask why it was typed as it was. Maybe
the seller was taking offense at the implication that his LEGO was
smoke-contaminated, even though the buyer also praised him for it? It may
well be due to such feedback, whether positive or negative, that a
transaction or future transaction might get canceled.
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cancelling orders -- a Brickbay issue
|
| (...) I think the only issue Brickbay has in this mess is whether or not to close Clark's shop. It would be too harsch of a punishment to shut down a seller upon a first screw up. It's true that Clark violated the TOS but that doesn't mean that his (...) (24 years ago, 9-Sep-00, to lugnet.market.buy-sell-trade)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
