The conditions stated by the Seller should say:

The first 'I'll Take It' with no conditions made""Posted here on the open Forum"" gets the item..
Please follow up with a PM for payment and shipping info.

Conditions to the buy, an I'll Take It sent by PM but no ITI made on the open forum listing take a back seat to the above.

JMO and how I list stuff.

This felt like a more friendly forum until I read this thread. Guess someone could miss out on the deal of a lifetime. Unfortunate. Regrettable. Whatever else. The Moderators should come up with rules? Maybe the guberment needs to make the rules. God help us survive the rules!

marlinguy wrote on Jul 12^th, 2026 at 1:05pm:


Val, this particular case that RJ posted about is a bit different.  He and I posted simultaneously in the thread that we would take it.  I didn't see his post, which I presume was above mine.  When I hit reply to type my post, there was no post saying "I"ll take it" in the thread.  The seller had two ads up, One for favorite parts and one for the high wall.  I wanted both.  I replied to the favorite ad, and sent a PM saying I would take it.  Then, posted in the high wall action ad, apparently simultaneously with RJ.    

I posted in both ads that I would take it, and sent an immediate PM.  The thing that went wrong was the simultaneous posting of two "I'll take it" replies, where I didn't see the one posted at the same as mine, above mine.   

What the seller saw was my PM saying I'd take both of the items, and I presume a PM from RJ later saying he would take the high wall.

RDBallard wrote on Jul 13^th, 2026 at 1:42am:

Totally agree. If somebody says I'll take it with stipulations like need more pictures or working out a deal, should not get the buy if somebody comes along and says I'll take it with no stipulations. Putting stipulations on the purchase just makes it harder for the seller. What if later, the person that wants to buy but waiting to see more pictures or working out a deal, backs out.

If you want more pictures or more information, IMHO, you shouldn't say I'll take it. Unless you post for all to see,that I will take it pending the pictures or information. The seller shouldn't have to hold the item very long after providing the pictures or more information.
You sure have to act fast at times to get a good deal.

So the basis of the question here is, 

Should the buyer be held to the sellers conditions.

Or should the seller be held to the buyers conditions.

One thing is certain, when the forum sets the rules, the moderators spend way to much time policing the classifieds and settling disputes.

Dellet:

IMO, The Seller Sets his rules. If he wants to be paid in BitCoin, etc. then that's his rule..... He Should Specifically State So.
 
I recently bought a period correct Scope from a fine gentleman who wanted me to send the funds in the form of a cashiers check to a unrelated third party, a Indian Owned Business in PA whom I couldn't speak with due to their unavailability... as crazy as that sounds, after my discussion with the seller, he had his reasons and I placed trust in his tenure on this forum as justification and sent the funds. Before anyone offers me their 20% Ownership Certificate in the Brooklyn Bridge, I'm not in the market.

I.M.O. If the seller wants to depart from the normal convention of First to speak up / "I'll take it" he should at least say 
"First to PM Me" gets it. How else is someone else to know he has his own "RULE" ... ?

Even with that the seller can play fast and loose the timing of commitments to buy. There is no way to have a monitor adjudicate honesty and ethics or should we try to.
I think we can only trust that someone will do the right thing in this sort of environment.
Once someone has demonstrated they can't be trusted we just cross them off our list and never trust what they have to do, say or sell again.

I bought a 30 inch barrel from a guy on this forum a ways back.
When it arrived it shrunk to 26", imagine that!

Now I've seen some pictures of this persons rifles, all were show pieces. Clearly he wasn't some rube who inherited his uncles estate. The surly offered response  'Well it should be good enough'  Obviously he has been crossed off my list. 

I started this thread to get a idea of what the majority
consensus of thought was on the subject. 

It's clear that the majority agree that the ethical thing, i.e the gentleman's conclusion is 'First to speak up' should prevail absent any qualifiers. 

I believe that for the most part the vast majority of members here are ethical. 

PS:
After 10 years of trading with folks on this forum I only had one individual on my 'Do not trade with list.', unfortunately now there are two. 

   


Dellet wrote Today at 1:10pm: