Ethics among members

[siesta181]

Hey guys,

Posted this on some other forum. Let's see if view on this matter differs.

Just want to hear your feedback and your thoughts on this matter and what YOU would do if in a similiar situation. No correct answer here but it would be interesting to see as to what lengths we would go to to achieve our goals, our principles and what we hold dear most.

Picture this, you have just seen a rare movement (sf240 / 618 / VJ72) that went for a ridiculously low amount. Dang... missed it but of course being the persistent person you are, you contact the dealer to see if he has another movement for sale, stating your intent to buy. During your course of your discussion, you reveal to ebay seller that the movement sold was below market price and that you were willing to offer more fore such movements. The ebay seller leads you to his other another auction (with same pictures as the original listing) with a higher BIN price and you conclude the deal.... making you Buyer 2.

Fast forward 1 month, you receive your movement and you are as happy as F U C K. But then you realise that the ebay seller actually scammed the 1st buyer and sold YOU the movement at your higher price. Of course these things happen all the time in eBay. Tough luck you say. Then somehow you find out that the 1st buyer is a member of the forum. You have met up with him, you have engaged his services (modding, repairing), he has shared tips on how to spot movements and so on and so forth....

What would you do???

You thoughts please...

Edit: Before I get hate mails and nasty PMs, let me reiterate that I am neither Buyer 1, Buyer 2 nor am I the eBay seller. Just an observer who minored in Psychology, wih an interest to find out what makes people tick

Edited April 21, 2011 by siesta181

[burnz]

i feel strongly enough about it to put it in my sig.

enough said.

[Migge]

Like Burnz says, I could never enjoy the watch that had this movement, knowing that it´s at the cost of a fellow enthusiast.

First and foremost if I knew what had happend I would contact my friend/the buyer and offer a solution.

Bottom line is my consiens could never let me enjoy the watch.

Is this a true story? Or just hypothetical?

Best regards

Mike

[burnz]

Like Burnz says, I could never enjoy the watch that had this movement, knowing that it´s at the cost of a fellow enthusiast.

First and foremost if I knew what had happend I would contact my friend/the buyer and offer a solution.

Bottom line is my consiens could never let me enjoy the watch.

Is this a true story? Or just hypothetical?

Best regards

Mike

oh it's real alright.. except that neither siesta181 nor i are the protagonists of the story, but it hit pretty close to home for us to feel strongly enough about it..

[Migge]

oh it's real alright.. except that neither siesta181 nor i are the protagonists of the story, but it hit pretty close to home for us to feel strongly enough about it..

You have to wonder how some people can sleep good at night despite their actions.

Common sense seems not so common anymore.

Hearing that this is true is sad indeed.

Best regards

Mike

[Mapman57]

That would sure not sit easy with me - I expect I would at least contact the much respected member and advise him of what you suspect has actually occurred. You have no obligation to make the movement available to him - that is your personal choice. But by making contact, at least you will protect the respected member from getting 'burned again'. You were afterall an innocent player in the transaction. It is your own care and dilligence that has unearthed the facts.

But you know what, things like that happen here amongst members! Its not an Ebay seller thing.

Just been stung myself here in the past 48 hours..............hurt bad.

Anyhow, back on topic, I don't see why any buyer would wish to, or feel obliged to tell an 'unknown', third party Ebay seller 'that his goods are underpriced? That just ups the price for you and all subsequent buyers. Surely it is an Ebay sellers own responsibility to do his own due dilligence on what he is selling? Afterall, Ebay is an open commercial marketplace.

However, the rep forum marketplaces are somewhat different and the written and unwritten rules reflect that.

I do feel that as fellow members here, and many of us in this thread are active across other forums as well, we should respect each other and play with total integrity - if not, we become one small step away from the ..............'dreaded scammer'.

Just an opinion guys and in no way to be read as a judgement of the OP, or any member posting above here LOL!

[coolfire]

oh it's real alright.. except that neither siesta181 nor i are the protagonists of the story, but it hit pretty close to home for us to feel strongly enough about it..

Amen to that bro.

Sent from my RafDroidHD using Tapatalk

[TeeJay]

I certainly wouldn't feel good about it, that's for sure... That said, that is how some people do business... A while back when I tried on the gen GMTIIc, the AD had said that it was reserved for someone, but I could still examine it. While I was trying it on, they said that if I wanted it and had the cash, I could buy it that day... (so much for the guy it was reserved for ) Obviously I didn't (and wouldn't) but it does go to show that some businesses are just out to get the money, with no thought of personal ethics...

[RickHiC]

The ebay seller didn't take the first buyer's money, did he?

If not, I'm going to have to side with the second person who received the movement. What the ebay seller did was unethical and against ebay terms of service, but how could you know that was going to happen. Maybe the gentlemanly thing to do would be to personally offer to sell the movement to buyer #1 for the higher price you paid. If he accepts, he's happy, you're happy, and you go back to hunting. If not, at least you can both feel like you had a fair shake and the person willing to pay more ended up with the movement.

[Watchmeister]

If I am reading the story correctly (and it is a big if), you wrote to a seller telling him you will pay more. Why? because you are hoping the seller is dishonest and greedy enough to hit your bid and screw the original buyer. Congratulations, you found a dishonest guy - success from your perspective. He is the scammer and you got what you want. So I don't think you have an ethical dilemma. You long since passed that. This is only coming up for fear of repercussions to you since it may come out on the forums. Bet you didn't hear that from anyone else.

In fairness, many people act this way so you are not alone. I have been on the other end of one of those situations although I did not lose my money. It was a larger item and my lawyer advised going after the original seller (money had passed so a legal transaction had taken place) which I did and then informing the new buyer that he was in possession of stolen property and requesting it back which I didn't. I settled for getting my money back.

And of course the seller is ultimately the scammer.

[mrboombasteke]

If not, I'm going to have to side with the second person who received the movement. What the ebay seller did was unethical and against ebay terms of service, but how could you know that was going to happen. Maybe the gentlemanly thing to do would be to personally offer to sell the movement to buyer #1 for the higher price you paid. If he accepts, he's happy, you're happy, and you go back to hunting. If not, at least you can both feel like you had a fair shake and the person willing to pay more ended up with the movement.

+1

assuming you didn't know it was going to happen

[TeeJay]

If I am reading the story correctly (and it is a big if), you wrote to a seller telling him you will pay more. Why? because you are hoping the seller is dishonest and greedy enough to hit your bid and screw the original buyer. Congratulations, you found a dishonest guy - success from your perspective. He is the scammer and you got what you want. So I don't think you have an ethical dilemma. You long since passed that. This is only coming up for fear of repercussions to you since it may come out on the forums. Bet you didn't hear that from anyone else.

In fairness, many people act this way so you are not alone. I have been on the other end of one of those situations although I did not lose my money. It was a larger item and my lawyer advised going after the original seller (money had passed so a legal transaction had taken place) which I did and then informing the new buyer that he was in possession of stolen property and requesting it back which I didn't. I settled for getting my money back.

And of course the seller is ultimately the scammer.

I read it as Buyer B asking if the seller had another movement for sale, and was willing to pay for it. Instead of Seller saying "No, I have only got the one" or "I can get hold of one for you" they instead sold the only movement they had at the higher price to Buyer B, leaving Buyer A hanging with his cheese in the wind... (never had the chance to use that expression till now, thankyou, John Hughes ) Not fair on Buyer A, but not Buyer B's fault... As with when I tried on the GMTIIc, the AD should never have offered me the option to purchase it, they should have honored their reservation with their original client...

[txcollector]

If I am reading the story correctly (and it is a big if), you wrote to a seller telling him you will pay more. Why? because you are hoping the seller is dishonest and greedy enough to hit your bid and screw the original buyer. Congratulations, you found a dishonest guy - success from your perspective. He is the scammer and you got what you want. So I don't think you have an ethical dilemma. You long since passed that. This is only coming up for fear of repercussions to you since it may come out on the forums. Bet you didn't hear that from anyone else.

In fairness, many people act this way so you are not alone. I have been on the other end of one of those situations although I did not lose my money. It was a larger item and my lawyer advised going after the original seller (money had passed so a legal transaction had taken place) which I did and then informing the new buyer that he was in possession of stolen property and requesting it back which I didn't. I settled for getting my money back.

And of course the seller is ultimately the scammer.

W, just to clarify, siesta181 is just reporting the incident. He was not a participant.

for me buyer 2 knew exactly what he was doing. He was stiffing the other buyer. Being caught is just the awkward consequence.

[mrboombasteke]

W, just to clarify, siesta181 is just reporting the incident. He was not a participant.

for me buyer 2 knew exactly what he was doing. He was stiffing the other buyer. Being caught is just the awkward consequence.

TX--initially I didn't think this to be true, but then I started wondering *WHY* would buyer 2 tell the seller that it's worth more? Who does that??? I think that's the key here. He intentionally did that to show he was willing to pay more in the hopes the seller would sell it to him.

[nikki6]

Are we going to name names here or just pussy around the fact?!

Surely if a member of one of the boards would do that to a fellow member it would be nice to know who to stay away from and who not to tell of good finds!!

Sixx

[OiRogers]

In any case, the seller should be avoided as untrustworthy.

If buyer 2 set out to grab the movement from under buyer 1 intentionally...s/he should also be avoided as untrustworthy.

If buyer 2 didn't realize what had happened until after the fact, but then offered the movement to buyer 1 at what s/he had in it at maximum, it's a mess; but buyer 2 is in a better light in my eyes. Not a saint, as I question contacting the seller with an offer after a sale on a rare piece... Chances of seller having more than one? Dang slim. So either way you go, buyer 2 has damaged their reputation, just to what extent?

On these rep forums (and the Gen ones too for that matter), we operate on trust. Once it's lost, it cannot be regained and the forums cannot function without trust.

It is a shame to see what greed will do to the ethics and dignity of some... True colors shining through and all that.

[burnz]

W, just to clarify, siesta181 is just reporting the incident. He was not a participant.

for me buyer 2 knew exactly what he was doing. He was stiffing the other buyer. Being caught is just the awkward consequence.

you are absolutely spot on there mate.. Absolutely spot on..

@Sixx, as far as names go, I think it best to leave it to the victim i.e. Buyer 1 to decide if he wants to out the member in question.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[coolfire]

In any case, the seller should be avoided as untrustworthy.

If buyer 2 set out to grab the movement from under buyer 1 intentionally...s/he should also be avoided as untrustworthy.

If buyer 2 didn't realize what had happened until after the fact, but then offered the movement to buyer 1 at what s/he had in it at maximum, it's a mess; but buyer 2 is in a better light in my eyes. Not a saint, as I question contacting the seller with an offer after a sale on a rare piece... Chances of seller having more than one? Dang slim. So either way you go, buyer 2 has damaged their reputation, just to what extent?

On these rep forums (and the Gen ones too for that matter), we operate on trust. Once it's lost, it cannot be regained and the forums cannot function without trust.

It is a shame to see what greed will do to the ethics and dignity of some... True colors shining through and all that.

Absolutely correct. This is exactly how a few of us on here feel too. Trust, integrity, ethics, dignity... and of course friendship/ All these come before watches imho.

[TJGladeRaider]

I have read the other posts, and I disagree - to some extent. Probably because my profession may cause me to look at things differently sometimes, and more probably because I was recently in a similar situation.

My assessment:

Buyer 1 did nothing wrong. He tried to buy X and got screwed.

Buyer 2 did nothing wrong, according to the facts and circumstances as described. Finding that X had sold, he reasonably and appropriately contacted the seller to see if more were available - someone explain to me how that is wrong? I have a NIB firearm for sale on GunBroker.com as we speak. When it sells, an interested party who contacted me would find that I have three of them NIB under my bed.

On the other hand, if that movement was rare, and if there was no likelihood that a seller would have two (which I don't know enough about to assess), then one might reasonably question his motive and intent - how this whole thing came to light would be an interesting piece of the puzzle. Further, but conversely, if Buyer 2 is the one who came forward to expose these events and offered B1 the movement at his cost, it would seem unlikely that B2 had bad intentions.

The seller was the scoundrel.

I recently found myself in such a situation. I made a sale, and was contacted minutes later by a potential buyer who was very anxious to acquire that particular watch. It would be easy to tell buyer one that I tested the watch and found the movement to be too dry to run - or some such thing. Had I done that, it would seem to me that the only party at fault would have been me.

Given the scenario as described, if I were Buyer 2, I'd explain the situation to Buyer 1, and give them the option to have the movement for the price I paid for it.

Bill

[Sweattdogg]

I agree I would offer the movement to the first buyer at the price I paid for it. At that point it is up to them to decide. The seller screwed the first buyer and put the second buyer in a really bad situation.

[txcollector]

Buyer 2 did nothing wrong, according to the facts and circumstances as described. Finding that X had sold, he reasonably and appropriately contacted the seller to see if more were available - someone explain to me how that is wrong? I have a NIB firearm for sale on GunBroker.com as we speak. When it sells, an interested party who contacted me would find that I have three of them NIB under my bed.

you must be missing an important point here: buyer 2 contacted the seller of a rare clock telling he sold the said clock for less than market value and buyer 2 was ready to pay the fair market value. In other words: "dude, you sold that one for cheap. I can pay more than that if you have another one." This would be not a problem if it was a readily available item. An Angelus clock with an SF240 is not readily available these days and any interested buyer would know.

how this whole thing came to light would be an interesting piece of the puzzle. Further, but conversely, if Buyer 2 is the one who came forward to expose these events and offered B1 the movement at his cost, it would seem unlikely that B2 had bad intentions.

From what I've heard, that was really the funny part. Apparently buyer 2 tried to disguise his mischief by posting a photoshop'ing the clock's picture. I believe buyer 1 was smart enough to put 2+2 together and buyer 1 was exposed.

for me it looks like it smells.

[dluddy]

If I am reading the story correctly (and it is a big if), you wrote to a seller telling him you will pay more. Why? because you are hoping the seller is dishonest and greedy enough to hit your bid and screw the original buyer. Congratulations, you found a dishonest guy - success from your perspective. He is the scammer and you got what you want. So I don't think you have an ethical dilemma. You long since passed that. This is only coming up for fear of repercussions to you since it may come out on the forums. Bet you didn't hear that from anyone else.

And of course the seller is ultimately the scammer.

I agree with this assessment. Did Buyer 1 ever pay or was he just shafted on his deal? If he didn't pay then it is an ethical dilemma and karma is a bitch. Buyer 2 should offer it to Buyer 1 at the price Buyer 2 paid. Oh, and the seller is a prick. A deal is a deal but as said, this happens all the time on ebay.

[txcollector]

I believe buyer 1 paid and of course did not receive the item.

[Watchmeister]

W, just to clarify, siesta181 is just reporting the incident. He was not a participant.

for me buyer 2 knew exactly what he was doing. He was stiffing the other buyer. Being caught is just the awkward consequence.

Good to hear. Thank you for that clarification. And of course I want to know who the person was.

[TJGladeRaider]

you must be missing an important point here: buyer 2 contacted the seller of a rare clock telling he sold the said clock for less than market value and buyer 2 was ready to pay the fair market value. In other words: "dude, you sold that one for cheap. I can pay more than that if you have another one." This would be not a problem if it was a readily available item. An Angelus clock with an SF240 is not readily available these days and any interested buyer would know.

From what I've heard, that was really the funny part. Apparently buyer 2 tried to disguise his mischief by posting a photoshop'ing the clock's picture. I believe buyer 1 was smart enough to put 2+2 together and buyer 1 was exposed.

for me it looks like it smells.

Oh yes indeed. Given that an item IS commonly available enough that a seller might have two:

1) If Buyer 2 is looking to buy a second item, he hopes to buy it at the same giveaway price as Buyer 1.

2) If Buyer 2 is looking to buy the original item that Buyer 1 contracted for, he offers the seller more for it.

If there is no reasonable likelihood that a seller could have two, Buyer 2 is thoroughly exposed.

If it is true that he modified pictures to try and hide what he had done, he indicts himself.

I'll offer you an observation behind which there is a lot of professional experience. Good people sometimes do bad things - who among us would like to step forward and say they have never done anything they seriously regretted in retrospect? The distinction is often a spur of the moment decision versus a deliberate scheme that was planned. Those of you who know who the parties involved are (which I do not) should carefully consider prior reputation.

If I were mediating this situation, my decision would be to require that Buyer2 surrender the item to Buyer1 at the price he contracted to buy it for; B2 absorbs the difference he paid to induce the seller to engage in these shenanigans.

If the list members concur, I would encourage you to say so. You may find that Buyer2 made a bad spur of the moment decision he is anxious to find a way to redress. If so, I'd forget about this unfortunate affair.

If not, someone should identify parties B2 and S.

It's not my place to judge, or dictate, but that seems to me to be the best alternative there is at this point.

Bill