I encountered a similar issue recently. It’s awkward. Not sure there is a perfect answer to your question. I didn’t find one to mine.

look at the time in the message.  that should tell you who was first.

First I’ll take it with no qualifications.

I saw this post, and then after looking at the OP's posts, saw that I was the guilty party in this case.

I saw an ad yesterday, just posted, for a high wall action.  Seller said PM's first.  I sent a PM (for this item, and another item he also had for sale) and also did a post in both threads, trying to forestall exactly this from happening.  If I had just sent the PM, and someone else posted, then it would appear the seller sold to someone other than the first respondent.  

In this case, there was no post before me when I typed in my post and hit send.  I didn't see the other post, truthfully until I saw this thread and looked.  My post, and RJ 35-40's, were literally posted simultaneously, from the standpoint of one or the other seeing the others post.  We were typing at the same time.

Not what I intended to do, cutting in on something someone else was trying to buy.  If he had messaged me that he thought he was first, I would have deferred to him.  If the seller told me someone else was ahead of me, I would have obviously deferred to them.  

My apologies, RJ, was not trying to beat you out when you were first, I just followed the instructions to PM the seller, and then didn't see your post after I posted my message that I would take it.  I've already paid for this and the other item from the seller.

I always post a reply stating the I will take it IMMEDIATELY followed by a PM. Just covering all the bases.   

BTW,
That next DST high wall action that anyone posts.  I will take it!   

Just Sayin'

Jack

This has happened to me several times.  I post the first I take it and then informed I am not first.  This sucks.  If you can’t openly pick an item in open with a time stamp for everyone to see, then you do not deserve consideration.

Allan

My preference would be to give the option to purchase to whomever replies to the post with “I will take it”. I see no problem if that person has a question or wants to see a photo especially if no clear photos are in the original post. Making a lower offer though would void the first right to purchase.  Vall’s example should be the way to handle the transaction. An immediate PM should be sent to verify the request.  I do not like the idea of only requesting a PM as it leaves others with the impression that the item is still available.

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 on Jul 15^th, 2026 at 1:10pm:

Dellet, 

RE" : You made a choice to post first and pm second as asked"

You are misinformed, The Seller DID NOT "ASK"
The seller didn't say PM FIRST. Didn't say, FIRST to PM, didn't say or direct anything outside the conventional "I'll Take it" applies... He did say PM me. 

If nothing else comes from this exchange is that we should be specific in posting 'For Sale' Items and the criteria to establish a commitment to purchase.

I didn't start this thread until I was informed the SAME seller had advertised two items (CPA Actions) For Sale. A buyer posted, I'll take them BOTH.

Wherein the committed buyer of the actions later discovered and was told by the SAME seller that he could only buy one of the items. Apparently the seller sold one of the items from under the guy who posted a commitment to buy Both. 

The first response I received from the seller to my inquiry can be generously characterized as a excuse laden sophomoric reply.
 
After I learned of the same sellers apparent subterfuge involving the two actions I thought it appropriate to shine a light on the need to be specific on how to commit to buy. 

Go back to the original listing
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links).

I can not believe that this foolishness has gone on for three pages. You really need to get over this.

Probably time to either close this thread, or delete it. It's not doing anyone any service.