One of the most problematic things in this forum- and any forum which has a section dedicated to buying, selling and trading goods- is when a dispute occurs as to who is the rightful claimant of an item or items for sale.

This is one of the reasons for this forum's (apparently unique) policy of exclusive listings. If you list it here, it is against policy to list it elsewhere, and though it is not the intent of my post to address this policy, let me take a moment to clarify something about it, which I find silly that it requires clarification.

Over the years, some members have balked at this policy, telling me that they can sell their property to whomever they wish. I could not agree more. I have no right to dictate to a man to whom he can sell his property. Some members have gotten hung up on this policy and have gotten all puffed up about it, and some of those members have- as a result- been shown the door.

The exclusive listings policy is not intended to dictate to whom a member may sell their property. What it says is that if you do not agree to abide by our exclusive listings policy, you are not allowed to post that item or those items for sale in this forum, and that is something which most certainly is within my purview. It's as simple as that. Do whatever you want, but if you are going to spread your ads across other forums, then keep them out of this forum. I think almost all members understand this, but some members have misinterpreted my intent and they have mis-gauged my perception of my authority.

Now, as to that part about a man having the right to sell his property to whomever he wishes- Recently, a desirable item came up for sale in the forum at a surprisingly low price. The member who posted it claims to have forgotten the exclusive listings rule, though it has been posted prominently at the top of Classifieds for many years. Given the item in question, and the selling price, it was not necessary to post it across multiple forums, for it sold- predictably- immediately, and to someone outside of this forum.

This is where the fun for me begins, and fun for the members designated to monitor Classifieds for issues.

To cut to the chase, the question of who has the right to claim an item for sale- specifically, the use of the phrase "I'll take it" because in this instance, even though the item sold elsewhere, the question arose- had it not sold elsewhere- as to who in this forum might be the rightful claimant. Given that the item was sold elsewhere, it seems silly to me that this question would even come up, but, it did.

The question is- does a member lay claim to an item by being the first to post in the thread, stopping short of a commitment to by, perhaps saying "I'm sending you an email." or is the true claimant the first one in the thread who says "I'll take it"?

There has never been an official policy on this. In the past a former moderator stated that there was such a policy regarding this, and the valid claimant was the one who said "I'll take it." That was 14 years ago. We seem to have done OK up until now, but for some reason, this latest go-around has raised questions beyond the norm.

I left things uncertain because- as I stated at the beginning of this post- I do not have the authority to tell a man who he may or may not sell his own property. Quite simply, I do not possess such authority.

Therefore, I have always dealt with issues regarding this kind of thing, on an individual basis. Now, there have been instances where a member has chimed in immediately on an ad, saying "I'll take it" and the seller says "Sorry, it's already sold." This raises my suspicions that the seller has violated the exclusive listing policy and sold the item or items elsewhere, and such a thing does fall within my purview, because that member is using our bandwidth in a way which is not allowed, and in doing so, they have wasted the time of one or more members, and they have wasted my time as well. I suppose this distinction has confused some members into thinking that I feel as if I have the right to dictate to whom a man can sell his goods. I hope this clears up the matter.

It is preferable that a member behave decisively and post "I'll take it" but if he does not- for whatever reason(s)- then he must take his chances. If the seller has received an email from a member who has posted in the ad "I have questions" or "I'm sending you an email" and the seller and that member enter into negotiations which result in a transaction, that is within the rights of the seller. But, if there is any question as to what transpired (because most or all of the negotiation took place out of sight of the forum) and I contact the seller and ask about who bought the item, I expect a direct answer (because, of course, it is automatically assumed that the buyer is a member of the forum), and lacking a direct response, the seller will likely be- at the very least- disallowed from accessing Classifieds from then on, and if they're belligerent about it, they may be removed from the forum altogether.

Now, just look at all this chicken scratch, guys. This is illustrative of why- of all the things I deal with in this forum- Classifieds is the biggest pain of all.

To those of you who took the time to read through all of that, I thank you. Any questions? Ask now, because I don't want to have to address this again.

I’ve always gone by the first public “I’ll take it” as the sign someone’s entered a deal with me. Anything prior to that is negotiating, but no commitment has yet been made. If someone’s discussing the sale with me in a PM or email and someone else comes along and posts “I’ll take it” without any other contact having been made, they still have first rights. I usually post this in the ad to avoid confusion, but it makes sense to me so there are no questions or disputes.

Thanks for taking time to address the issue.

To be certain I’m clear about one thing, if an email exchange results in an agreement to sell before someone else posts in the thread, “I’ll take it,” then the prior agreement takes precedence even though it wasn’t immediately noted in the thread: Am I correct?

And I understand that if there is a question about the timing of the transaction, the seller would be expected to respond to confirm that it met forum rules—?

Correct

I don't have any right to tell a member- seller or buyer- to break a deal already made with a forum member, but when you violate our exclusive listings policy and sell to a non-member, that's when you're violating my rules, and you will be subject to disciplinary action.

Thanks again.

quote:

To be certain I’m clear about one thing, if an email exchange results in an agreement to sell before someone else posts in the thread, “I’ll take it,” then the prior agreement takes precedence even though it wasn’t immediately noted in the thread: Am I correct?

I understood the explanation of rules differently. It appears that the rule being clarified is posting an item on another forum or platform. The rule seems very clear that if it is listed here it should only be listed here. I personally appreciate this rule, as it usually works beneficially for the purchaser who can see who has responded publicly. I also appreciate the statement about a man being able to sell his property to whomever he chooses (God Bless America).

As to who lays claim to an item listed here... A lot of listings specify the order of operations. If it says "first posted I,ll take it" then we should assume that's exactly what it means. Just because someone is in negotiations with a seller (email sent) doesn't automatically give the prospective buyer preference. It should also be noted that when sellers are accused of shady business, they have this wonderful platform to explain their side of the story. If it's on the up and up, no problem. If the seller backs out of an agreed upon deal because someone soon after offered something more, that is shady business and those guys don't make it too far.

It's ofttimes difficult to prove that a seller has broken an agreement in order to have a more lucrative sale. However, emails with timestamps and unambiguous language can reveal the truth. So, we will deal with such things on an individual basis, and believe me, if I catch a member pulling that kind of slimy shit, I'll boot them so far out of this forum, their great-grandkids won't be able to register.

Every listing I’ve done has included the need for “I’ll take it” for everyone to see and understand that it is spoken for. And thanks Para for making it about as bulletproof a system that could exist to protect all involved in buying or selling here.

Thank you for the clarification. I am the unsuccessful would-be buyer of the revolver that precipitated this discussion. I have kept the emails that were exchanged between me and the seller, which I can forward to you if you want to see them, although your perception of the whole disaster is correct, and those emails won't change anything.

I just have one little suggestion, if you don't mind. Your clarification did not mention the exception to the exclusive listing rule. I assume that legitimate dealers are still exempt from that, for good reason. Is that correct?

quote:

Originally posted by Basher42:
I’ve always gone by the first public “I’ll take it” as the sign someone’s entered a deal with me. Anything prior to that is negotiating, but no commitment has yet been made. If someone’s discussing the sale with me in a PM or email and someone else comes along and posts “I’ll take it” without any other contact having been made, they still have first rights. I usually post this in the ad to avoid confusion, but it makes sense to me so there are no questions or disputes.

This is exactly what I do and spell it out right away in the ad, "First 'I'll take it' posted in this thread with a follow-up email confirmation to me wins. No exceptions." Even if you say you'll take it in email without saying it in the ad, but someone comes along and says it in the ad first, that second person wins. You have to follow the terms, or you might not get the item.

Problems typically arise when there are no clear terms posted at the outset, imo.

Thank you, Para.

quote:

I assume that legitimate dealers are still exempt from that, for good reason. Is that correct?

Unless we're talking about a unique item; that is to say, a particular item- a used pistol, or exceptionally uncommon item.

The idea is that a dealer listing items for sale would have more than a single copy of that item.

Is this vague? Yes, and necessarily so, and I will say that in all the years of having this rule in force, no issue has ever arisen from it regarding dealer sales.

quote:

Originally posted by gbalance:
As to who lays claim to an item listed here... ... If it says "first posted I,ll take it" then we should assume that's exactly what it means.

That is my belief and understanding.

However: Contrary to what some members believed (and perhaps not entirely without justification), "the first unqualified `I'll take it` wins the item" is not a Classifieds rule, per se. It only strictly applies if the seller states it does.

The origin of the unqualified "I'll take it" can be found here, posted by arcwelder many years ago, when Para first posted the Classifieds policy.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

The origin of the unqualified "I'll take it" can be found here, posted by arcwelder many years ago, when Para first posted the Classifieds policy.

Yeah, that's the post that I was referring to, in the classified ad for the revolver that started this whole thing.

Something that has happened twice over the years, when I benefited from this. Both times, somebody had posted something for sale. When I noticed the WTS, there was already another member in there, haggling over the price. Both times, I thought that the price originally posted by the seller was a fair price, so I posted in the thread, "I'll take it (for the original asking price)." Both times, the seller responded, and sold the item to me. Both times, I received email from the member who had been haggling, accusing me of sniping, and trying to start a bidding war. Both times, I responded to those emails, stating that I was not bidding, I was merely offering to buy the item at the original asking price while he was trying to shave a few bucks off it. So, I do like the idea of the first person who posts an unconditional "I'll take it," is the recognized buyer of the item. Without that protocol, there can be chaos and arguments.

I’m 100% with V-Tail on this - if you list an item for sale, and someone starts to haggle/negotiate with you via email or on the forum… that item isn’t sold yet.

An “I’ll take it” is a firm, binding agreement (among members) that the item is sold at the price stated. The deal is done, the money changing hands is a formality.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
...So, I do like the idea of the first person who posts an unconditional "I'll take it," is the recognized buyer of the item. Without that protocol, there can be chaos and arguments.

So, imo, Edmond should have been the "winner" in that ad, and not someone else on some other board. But, as we found out, seller effed it up by violating the exclusive rule, plus having no clear terms spelled out.

I recently purchased a pistol on the forum. I had emailed for photos and then talked to the seller on the phone, and we came to an agreement. He asked for my user name and I told him I will go to the forum right now and state "I will take it" so you will know it is legitimate, which I did.

Another member then posted in that ad that I was being a dick because I had not put anything on the forum that I was in negotiations. He said I bought in the dark, implying that I was being unethical.

I prefer to have negotiations in private. It is less muddling of the thread and if it does not work out it is between me and the seller.

Here is the post I am talking about:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...0601935/m/5700084205

^^^ That person has no claim, despite his hissy fit. You won. Period.

Haggling always means you might not get the deal. I’m with V-Tail, “Email sent” doesn’t supersede the next person who simply replies with “I’ll take it at the posted price.” It’s not bidding, it’s taking the original deal while someone was trying to jockey for a better price, and I say that as someone who has no problem haggling, as per my recent thread in the “bitch” section.

I saw that thread, wcb. Since it’s topical, I think the other poster was wildly out of line. Asking for pictures isn’t an “I’ll take it,” and to my mind, carries no claim whatsoever.