Should I accept the refund? (CLOSED)...please don't comment. (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

Seller has the chips AND your $$
You can only "accept" whichever he gives you

Absolutely this. I mean I can respect where the "demand the chips" crowd is coming from, but there doesn't seem to logistically be a way to force this point.

If he's backing out of the deal, you can't force it.

You can out the trader after the fact, but it seems you would rather not. (Maybe if he does re-list these at a higher price point you would reconsider.) It's fine not to out the trader, but it does mean taking the refund and terminating the deal is the only option. You have exhausted everything you can do to get the chips.

question: Am I being unreasonable or should the seller honor the deal?

edit: I am not going to send seller’s information. The point was not to out someone, it was to determine if I was being unreasonable or not.

Short answer, to this point, you have been very reasonable. But I think further attempts to insist appear to be fruitless unless you are willing to add public pressure. (Which is your decision, and I respect that you would rather not at this point.)

 

[JustinInMN]

I suggest telling the seller that you’d prefer they honor the deal, but if they won’t you will accept the refund. I’d probably leave neutral feedback and state factually what happened without editorial comments. That is enough feedback to help other buyers decide about future transactions.

Then I’d move on.

Well officially there isn't supposed to be trading in DMs and the feedback system does not apply.

EDIT: See @ReallyGoodUsername 's response in post #35. "Isn't supposed to be trading" is likely incorrect wording.

 

[ovo]

I just hope the seller is not planning on selling to someone else that is paying more, that would be sad

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Without anybody in this thread (including OP) knowing the REAL reason for the deal falling through, may I offer some advice to not be so quick at jumping to assumptions and throwing the seller under the bus.

To be fair most of my frustration is with the reason given. It's either fictitious or does not make a lick of rationale sense.

It's bad form to back out of a deal you've already been paid for, worse to do it with a lie.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Well officially there isn't supposed to be trading in DMs and the feedback system does not apply.

Not sure this is correct. Maybe you're referring to the fact that people are not allowed to create threads solely for the purpose of providing feedback for deals done via PM? Different than taking the stance that selling or trading via PM isn't allowed.

 

[horseshoez]

Take the refund and connect again later on. There are times when someone can change their mind about their chips multiple times within the first couple days. It should be somewhat expected and some have more indecision about their chips than others. No big deal. We live to see another day.

 

[JustinInMN]

Not sure this is correct. Maybe you're referring to the fact that people are not allowed to create threads solely for the purpose of providing feedback for deals done via PM? Different than taking the stance that selling or trading via PM isn't allowed.

I believe you are correct, it's wrong to say "trading not allowed," I should have left it as "feedback doesn't apply" Will edit above.

 

[Eriks]

Take the refund and connect again later on. There are times when someone can change their mind about their chips multiple times within the first couple days. It should be somewhat expected and some have more indecision about their chips than others. No big deal. We live to see another day.

Yeah, but they should be honest about the reasons for the sudden change of heart and not give some half ass story about the hacker thing.

 

[PlayerADK]

Unfortunate but not a big deal. Common to get cold feet/change your mind about selling.

Somewhat bad-mannered and I'd be wary trading with someone like that again - but I'm guilty of being super indecisive as well. If I promised someone chips and already got the money, I'd never back out.

If this person resells to maximize profit, then they've made my blacklist. Pure bad manners vs indecisive trade is very different.

 

[horseshoez]

Yeah, but they should be honest about the reasons for the sudden change of heart and not give some half ass story about the hacker thing.

Very true. When it’s really obvious that they’re just using something such as that as a scapegoat, it’s best to let the dead horse be. Their conscience is responsible for that, not me as the buyer.

 

[legend672]

Take the refund.

 

[Jhoov2412]

He is obviously waffling. Take the refund. Keep it on good terms and you will probably get them down the road. Push him now and you won't.

You "avoid this user" guys are savage.

You say savage but I prefer not to waste my time getting jerked around. Once the money is exchanged a deal is made, backing out of it for any reason is in poor taste but the reason the seller gave is ridiculous.

 

[Marius L]

You should get the chips obviously, if it's as clear cut as you make it sound. Would be good to hear the other side, but seller sounds pretty lame for backing out of the deal.

If he is legitimately worried about the hacking thing (which makes no sense, but whatever), you might get the option to buy them later on, but more likely he decided to keep them, or got a better offer. Either way hard for you to do much about it, and so the full refund is better than nothing I guess.. But again, bad form from the seller obviously.

 

[ChipEnvy]

Tell him you want the chips you paid for. If he refuses to ship, then accept the refund and publicly out him for not honoring his word after he had your cash in hand.

The chipping community deserves to know about shady characters. Nothing good is gained by protecting them with silence.

I disagree. The last thing we need right now is more drama. This isn't a big enough deal to bring out the torches, both parties are made whole in this case.

I suggest telling the seller that you’d prefer they honor the deal, but if they won’t you will accept the refund. I’d probably leave neutral feedback and state factually what happened without editorial comments. That is enough feedback to help other buyers decide about future transactions.

Then I’d move on.

^ 100% this. OP can even leave negative feedback if they feel it is deserved. That is what feedback is for and is is all the chipping community deserves to know.


***edit***
Shit, I didn't remember feedback can only be given when a classified post is responded to. There is no clear path forward. OP can either go the "Raising Hell" route, or can accept the Seller changed their mind and bank the chip karma. Not a big enough deal to publicly shame the person. Like I said before, everyone is whole in this situation, no bloods been drawn, time to move on.

 

[BearMetal]

It's seller's remorse, right? I think we've all had it. I had a purchase once and about a week after I received the chips the seller contacted me asking if he could buy them back. I understand it can happen sometimes. So I sold them back at the same price, with the caveat that I needed pictures with whatever he was going to do with them.

... But in this case that's not what the seller said. He claimed that he didn't know if you were a scammer because of the recent hack, which seemed like a really weak excuse. I'm guessing that if he was honest with you and said that he regretted selling them and wanted to send the money back immediately, you would have been more open to it.

But, at the end of the day, you can't force him to send you the chips. So, you can try to ask for the actual chips but at the end of the day a refund is really the only option if he refuses.

 

[Eloe2000]

I will mention one aspect I had considered before the seller gets totally pitchforked. The seller could have easily just refunded the money already. They could have just refunded the money and sent a note saying “in light of recent hacking concerns I am refunding your money”. The fact that they haven’t done so and have communicated to some extent with the buyer leaves some hope that there is some more context here or perhaps they were just floating some slight concerns about hacking.

We have seen other situations where the buyer backs out and they usually just refund the money and then send a note after the fact saying “deal is off because of...”

 

[Matthew627]

I will mention one aspect I had considered before the seller gets totally pitchforked. The seller could have easily just refunded the money already. They could have just refunded the money and sent a note saying “in light of recent hacking concerns I am refunding your money”. The fact that they haven’t done so and have communicated to some extent with the buyer leaves some hope that there is some more context here or perhaps they were just floating some slight concerns about hacking.

We have seen other situations where the buyer backs out and they usually just refund the money and then send a note after the fact saying “deal is off because of...”

My goal was not to create a mob with pitchforks, it was to get opinions that both myself and the seller could read to understand this community. When I am dealing with a situation where both people are not happy with something, it is beneficial to get outside thoughts to help with decision making. I WILL NOT be outing the seller as that was not the point of this thread.

 

[Eloe2000]

My goal was not to create a mob with pitchforks, it was to get opinions that both myself and the seller could read to understand this community. When I am dealing with a situation where both people are not happy with something, it is beneficial to get outside thoughts to help with decision making. I WILL NOT be outing the seller as that was not the point of this thread.

I didn’t intend to imply that you were pitchforking them, but the crowd tends to pull out their pitchforks in these situations which is what I was referring to.

That being said... can you add some more context here?

Were the chips in question chips that had gone way up in value over the initial sale?

To confirm, the seller has not actually issued a PP refund? They only mentioned via PM that they “would like to” or “is going to” refund your money?

Do you intend to proposed some other form of authentication?

 

[Matthew627]

I am closing this thread, as I feel that most of you agree with my frustration. Thank you for your thoughts. Anymore posts in this thread will not be productive.

 

[Eloe2000]

Understanding how it plays out would be productive for the community FWIW.

 

[ekricket]

Offer the seller first right of refusal at the same price if you decide to sell in the future? That way they can honor their deal but get the chips back eventually when you move on.

 

[Matthew627]

Understanding how it plays out would be productive for the community FWIW.

The only productivity would be if I outed the seller and as I said, I am not doing that. I mainly wanted to determine if I was pressuring too hard showing my frustration.

 

[shorticus]

Is it possible that seller got a better offer via PM for these chips? That’s a pretty lame and completely ignorant excuse imo. Seller probably used the offer and payment as leverage to PM someone else to get more money for his chips. I don’t know said person, but if I was a betting man (I am), based on the information, it definitely seems he took the better deal and couldn’t man up and tell you. Think about it for a second. He didn't want to sell you chips, found chips he liked, sold you chips to get the chips he wanted, then cancels the sale to you? Assuming he still wanted said chips, he had to acquire funds somehow.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

We often send large sums of money to each other using PPFF, which means ultimately buyers have little protection other than reputation and word of mouth.

I'm fine with not outing the guy and chalking up his "hacking" claim as likely seller's remorse. If I was OP, I wouldn't blackball the guy entirely, but he'd definitely be on my "think twice before doing business with" list.

 

[Darthhoodie]

I can see the point of people who want the person outed "for the good of the group". In contrast, I think one should also weigh the negative effect on the group when a thread gets put up with PM's posted and people arguing and what not. I'm not saying don't out the person, I'm just saying that careful thought should be given and both the positive and negative effect of such a post should be considered. Backing out of a deal where money has changed hands is not cool at all, and if it was done to me I would be mad, but on the scale of shitty things that have been done to people here, it's not even close to the top of the list. Full disclosure, I'm not sure I would out the person unless they tried to scam me by not refunding me or something. I would never have sent the money until the chips were in the seller's hands to begin with so it's hard to tell exactly. Hypothetically, if they had the chips in hand, held on to the money and the chips for a while and then gave me some excuse and sent my money back, maybe then, but i'm still not sure if I would. It's a shitty thing to do im just not sure its burn the village down shitty, but I think reasonable people can disagree on this.

 

[upNdown]

First off, don't send someone money when they don't even have possession of the chips.

This is kind of important.
I learned a long long time ago (and it had nothing to do with chips) that buying or selling things that don't yet exist, is a very bad idea.

 

[Darthhoodie]

This is kind of important.
I learned a long long time ago (and it had nothing to do with chips) that buying or selling things that don't yet exist, is a very bad idea.

Yes its always a bad idea, as a seller I would not accept the money until I had the chips. Even if all parties have the best intentions, shit happens and its just too variable of a situation to complicat even further by accepting money with out having the product in hand. Obviously there are exceptions to this if dealing with long time friends or whatever.

 

[Marius L]

This is kind of important.
I learned a long long time ago (and it had nothing to do with chips) that buying or selling things that don't yet exist, is a very bad idea.

I feel like this is not a problem if you deal with reputable members. In general I think this is pretty common around here, as people change direction all the time. With new members I would be more cautious if they didn't have the chips in hand yet, but honestly I would be more cautious with new members regardless.

 

[Thomacetti]

Well....The pot calling the kettle black

Please beware dealing with @Matthew627 since he likes to post polls when feeling shorted...but is not trusted as a seller.
After posting dibs he sold the item to another members without any reason.

Link to sale

To a 2022 with more ethics and less business @PCF

Ps. I would have voted 'chips'

 

[Eloe2000]

Well....The pot calling the kettle black

Please beware dealing with @Matthew627 since he likes to post polls when feeling shorted...but is not trusted as a seller.
After posting dibs he sold the item to another members without any reason.

Link to sale

To a 2022 with more ethics and less business @PCF

Ps. I would have voted 'chips'

I am not involved in this in any way, but since you posted about it I am curious. You posted a conditional dibs. So was there any relevance to the conditional dibs in how this unfolded?

You posted: "If this can work with 220v then dibs"

The seller didn't specify any details about the type of sale, only "Let me know if you are interested." While I am a proponent of first come gets the deal unless stated otherwise. Things get weird when abstract conditions to the claim on a sale are applied. And if I was selling this item I wouldn't know this answer and wouldn't want to be responsible for the answer either. So I am curious to learn more.