A runner can’t afford to buy a watch, so is it him who asks the seller to hold it and offers a non-refundable deposit?
Potential buyer fails to respond several times (insert excuse or two here) in order to complete the deal.
Seller re-lists watch.
Buyer moans on Watch Talk, not particularly about the deposit.
What has the seller done wrong?
PS: Some members spelling and grammar is worse than the content of this thread!
There is certainly a small group (possibly multiple accounts) in the shadows trying their luck with the SC.
Low balling (asking price -50 to 70%) and strange PMs come through whenever I list a watch on SC.
I'm sure some of you have experienced this. I've dealt with Ken a few times now and he is certainly not in the same catagory as the the aforementioned spivs and chancers.
Presumably new members are a good thing, fresh blood, different ways of thinking ? Personally, everything I have seen over the last year or so makes me cautious and just a touch wary. The majority of people are 100% straight, watch enthusiasts. But with the internet, it doesn't take many criminals to cause havoc.
I would certainly look for sellers with a long history of selling on TZ. That's just common sense. The existence of the forum gives people an incentive to behave well. It should be quite an effective form of control.
Last edited by paskinner; 1st May 2016 at 21:01.
You are right of course, I did tell the buyer that this sad episode has effectively ended both our times on here. We would never be taken seriously if posting in normal threads and as many have said most people wouldn't touch us with a barge poll if we tried to buy or sell on SC.Originally Posted by Gavbaz
This is my final posting on the subject, but I will end by saying that I am a man of my word. The watch will be sold elsewhere if the current deal falls through and the lovely chap who stated all this will get his money back - WHEN I HAVE HIS BANK DETAILS !!!
argh.... My sympathies to both parties.
My advice to the seller is to ask magsal for his account details, return the deposit and have no further dealings with magsal. If magsal has not provided the details within 1 week or so, donate the 500 pounds to the fundraiser and have no further dealings with magsal.
I have been confronted with time wasters in the past and I believe the best course of action is to square things away fairly and then refuse any further communication.
This is the first and hopefully last time I agree with you on any subject.
How did he pay you the deposit? A genuine question by the way, not having a go.
Coulda been RMSD. Apparently they cover up to two and a half grand sent in an envelope !
where did you see - in the posts of the seller in this thread - that the buyer had offered a non refundable deposit?
And if you cant see what the seller has done wrong, you should consider giving up the job of the 'doorman of the forum' and take the long sabbatical you often threaten us with.
The distinction between refundable and no refundable deposit is artificial .
By and large a deposit is non refundable. Otherwise what is the point?
The seller has a deposit from the buyer. It hasn’t been explained where that idea came from.
I am on a sabbatical, but I’ve just popped on over the last few days and spent five grand with other members.
I don’t have a job on here. Similarly, you do not have manners, nor a personality. Please take your comments and stick them.
Really? Says who? Maybe in a commercial environment ( and even then, not always), but wasn't certainly on this forum. Indeed, here, deposits were more of a good faith to transact between friends. Maybe, too many dealers these days on here.
So you made up the assertion that it was a non refundable deposit.
Oh my, speak of manners and personality from a potty mouth. My, my.
( incidentally, it is 'either/or, neither/nor. A grammar nazi should know that)
Last edited by UJJWALDEY8165; 1st May 2016 at 21:38.
I’m not here to argue with you.
The way I read it, help me if I’m incorrect, is there is a deposit with the seller, from the buyer, which was not going to be returned until all this came out?
The details of the deposit transaction have not been revealed, so it is unfair to lambast the seller if the buyer sent the deposit on the basis of ‘if I do not complete in xx days, you can keep it’.
Nothing on my previous posts on this thread can give me the title of potty mouth, so please take your insults elsewhere.
I’d buy from the seller named here, it’s saddo’s like you make this place crap.
And where did you get this from, ?
As for the terms, we are not yet informed.
So that told you that it was a non refundable deposit?
Bravo, he who bangs on about the spirit of the forum, and makes it a mission to go after anyone who takes his fancy. Well done
The fact it hadn’t been refunded gave me a clue.
Forum spirit is dead. I don’t care for it at all. That drum has had its last bang.
I don't believe that is true.
Of course it isn't. Not everyone seems to share it, though. That is a shame.
Not dead just patchy. I suppose given the size of TZ perhaps to be expected
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is that relevant?
You can receive a payment by bank transfer without obtaining the details of the remitting account.
That is what I wanted to say. Thanks.
Because if it was via PPG, which accounts for the other 50% transactions on here, the details for a refund destination are immediately available.
Read all of this and I don't understand what those who think the deposit should have been immediately refunded, see as the purpose of the deposit. If it's to be refunded if someone has a change of heart, what was the point of taking it in the first place?
Surely the deposit is to either guarantee the sale, or offer some consideration should the sale not be completed (and the opportunity to sell elsewhere is either delayed or lost)
What would the point of a refundable deposit be?
IMO on this forum a deposit is wrong.
Please can somebody explain to me how the buyer has accessed SC. with a post count in the seventies ? Or am I missing something here ?
Those who are beating the drum about immediate return of deposit-
Consider this- Someone pays a deposit to secure a watch, strings the seller along for weeks, then pulls out and deposit has to be IMMEDIATELY returned.
So, how does this work for the seller- he has lost a few weeks, has to return the deposit IMMEDIATELY, (!otherwise gets vilified by people on a high horse) probably has to turn down other potential buyers in the mean time and then relist the item?
Two other factors which somewhat play into this is the circumstances of the buyer and who is the buyer.
In this case a death in family could have played a role but it seems the buyer was saying all the time that he wanted the watch and was going to pay up, it seems. He could have pulled out when faced with the loss of family member but he didn't and seems is an excuse being used at a later stage. Secondly, the buyer hasn't been here long enough to justify the calls of spirit of forum blah,blah. Yeah, if he was a regular and well known /well regarded member, it is different.
50 to view SC and 250 to post in SC.
I wasn't party to the terms of the deal but my issue is simple. Wallasey Runner can keep the £500 for all I care. His relisting made reference to being let down and messed about but not to the fact he was WELL recompensed for it. £500 for not selling a watch for 5-6weeks? That's not a bad return.
Now he talks about returning it or sending it to the fund raiser. Would he have done this if this post wasn't started? Perhaps he would but from the tone of his SC post, I doubt it.
Has the OP asked for the money back?
i thought he was just complaining about having been called a timewaster.
What "comedy watch"?
Well. One to add to my ignore list. Thanks for the headed up!
The op wasn't called anything as he was totally anonymous until he kicked up the stink. Classic
If the 'buyer' ( if we can call him that ) had respected the spirit of the forum, we wouldn't have this post here in the first place! Would all have been dealt by PM. A bit rich to ask the seller who has been inconvenienced to suddenly fall in line with some people's idea of the spirit of the forum.
That's fair enough, but in a situation where both parties have agreed to a deal on the basis of one like this, presumable both felt that it served some purpose.
To me the language used by both protagonists in the early part of this thread suggest that neither expected the deposit to be returned, whether that was explicitly agreed or not. On that basis, £500 for being a bit peeved and delaying a sale for 5 or 6 weeks seems like a damned good result and having a public moan about it a little churlish. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I wonder what would have happened had the name-calling not started...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why is this, as far as I can tell, internal drama public? This is indecent.
Just to add more fuel to the fire. I'm new here. I don't really know the seller or the buyer. However I had a very small exchange of PMs with Ken and he has proven extremely helpful and kind. He helped me without me asking and with nothing to gain but my gratitude. As far as I understand this is what the "spirit of the forum" is about.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quite a squabble. At school this sort of stuff would normally end with fisticuffs.
Last edited by Ivor the Engine; 2nd May 2016 at 07:26.
I think WR is treated incredibly unfair here. He had asked for a deposit based on the fact that a complete newbie (and utter nonsense-poster) has asked him to hold the watch. When magsal told him that he was not honouring the agreement, he apparently never mentioned the mother (if I read the initial posts correctly) and not the deposit either. So WR relists the watch and waits for magsal to ask for the deposit back. Next thing is this thread.
Now explain what WR has done wrong? NOTHING.
^^^ Couldn't agree more. This whole post from Magsal was totally pointless. Again, he wasn't even named as the time waster so he just decided to see his arse and make an issue of something that could have been handled via PM. There's nothing wrong with deposits if someone wants to show they're serious about buying a watch but can't complete straight away. Especially for over 5k of watch so the owner has a delay of funds. Complete nonsense this whole thread.
Outrageous!!!
The new Snoopy Omega I think. That said, Wallasey Runner managed to pay for it so one up on the OP
In reply to Raffe - he moaned about his time being wasted whilst sitting on £500 that he probably had no intent to refund. Fine, but don't have a whine about it. He has edited it away now, so if you missed it then yes, it seems WR is harshly treated. This doesn't excuse what the Op wrote.
I understand that people have different opinions on who is wrong here, what I don't understand is all the vitriol and offensive and insulting postings. It is totally unnecessary and those concerned should be ashamed of themselves.
State your opinions yes, have a polite argument, fine, but leave out the personal insults and heavy sarcasm.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Who would you report to the police here?
Sad to see this situation has arisen.
IMO it is up to both parties to agree purchase terms and it is acceptable to hold an item on a deposit if the buyer cannot purchase straight away. But it should also be agreed at the outset what the outcome would be if the buyer subsequently decided to not pay the balance.
There wouldn’t be any debating now had that been done.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Agreed on all counts.
I don't think either party can be considered an exemplar of best conduct - the buyer clearly messed the seller about but I'm also not comfortable with the notion of non-refundable deposits and to my mind it should have been offered back without the prompting that occurred on this thread.
Once SC ceases to be a trading platform for a bunch of mates (and it's heading that way, frankly) we'll have lost something very precious here.
You omitted an apostrophe. I think you should have typed "are worse", as well.
it's a bit messy ,but I think I would give £400 back(where details arrive to refund to )and put £50 in the fundraiser(that will teach him) and keep £50 to go for a drink(will soften the blow) with the mrs and move on,lifes too short guys.I have had people change there minds and refunded deposits not the end of the world.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
