offshore Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Just saw this post at RWI. I just noticed that someone who recently purchased a watch from me, is now selling a watch I might want, and it gave me an idea... Since it seems like there is a lot less protection afforded when trading watches than when buying/selling one outright (Paypal, CC, etc...) Would it not make sense for the parties involved in a trade to agree on a fair dollar value of the transaction, then paypal each other the agreed upon amount, essentially splitting the "trade" into 2 independent "sales"? Seems to me that this would give both sides some protection, albeit costing a few bucks in paypal fees. I've seen it suggested before that both sides of the trade send the items to a third party, but it seems that nobody wants that job, and it brings additional issues into play... Curious what you guys think... (I apologize if this has been discussed before, don't remember seeing it...) This seems like a solid concept to me. It certainly puts a stop to some of the issues which have cropped up over swaps. Of course it doesn't address the scammer who sends nothing, but with some work this may have some relevance. Interested in more input on this concept. Offshore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modelizer Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Sounds like a solid concept indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxman Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Indeed a good idea OS.a few tweeks here and there should do the trick. They can always send there money to me..I dont have a problem with that. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't think it is a workable idea. As was suggested no one in their right mind is going to want to be the arbiter. Even more problematic is the additional shipping charges for two rounds of additional shipping to that arbiter and then buyer for a rep or even a franken? Whose fault is it if the watch gets damaged enroute to or from the arbitor? And what if you disagree with the arbiter's conclusion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefanp67 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I wonder if a forum trusted middleman would work or if it is to expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't think it is a workable idea. As was suggested no one in their right mind is going to want to be the arbiter. Even more problematic is the additional shipping charges for two rounds of additional shipping to that arbiter and then buyer for a rep or even a franken? Whose fault is it if the watch gets damaged enroute to or from the arbitor? And what if you disagree with the arbiter's conclusion? No the suggestion is not to use a 3rd party but to pay for each others watch. It gives both parties access to the PP dispute process should either not deliver. That's just the explanation, I haven't thought it through to say how I see it but it does sound feasible. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krpster Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. As long as both parties are agreeable to paying the fees, a sort of transaction insurance if you will. Seems too simple though. Must be a catch somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastrmindalliance Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I posted this elewhere as well, but isn't the catch that exchanging the money is essentially moot and the transaction carries on as per a regular trade? Perhaps i'm missing something but the trade value would be the same for both parties - you pay 200 - you recieve 200. you each send a watch. Even Stevens. The only bonus is that you now have their PP addy, the added disadvantage is that PP offers another avenue for a scammer to rob you of your money (remove received funds while goods in transit, dispute the paid funds), and your watch. Not trying to be neg, just trying undestand this properly. What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 On the face of it it would seem to give certain coverage to each party... But then you get into why the trade is taking place... Neither or one party has available funds High value to low value plus cash The nitpickers or change of heart types I am not falling on either side at the moment... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchmeister Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 No the suggestion is not to use a 3rd party but to pay for each others watch. It gives both parties access to the PP dispute process should either not deliver. That's just the explanation, I haven't thought it through to say how I see it but it does sound feasible. Ken Thanks Ken. Completely missed the point. So the only friction would be the paypal fees and in theory folks can resort to the usual paypal/cc remedies. So basically it is two folks selling to one another at the same time. Seems harmless to me other than the fees and I suppose it might inspire someone to trade with someone they might not otherwise be comfortable trading with. Although if I was trading/selling to someone I had no prior experience with I probably would stagger my transactions anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KB Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 ok after giving it some thought I see both mastrmindalliance and PeteM have pretty much covered the points I would have raised. I suppose it is still an option for those who wish to try it but I can understand why most would not bother. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Hyde Posted October 26, 2011 Report Share Posted October 26, 2011 It sounds fair enough to be, but one with a bit more hassle. Obviously both parties would need to be in agreement. I'd rather trade with a trusted member of the forum than a new boy like me I suppose its a case of buy the buyer, but the paypal bullet proof's it for all parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.