In this particular situation it would appear that the seller in question “shook on it”, and then regretted the decision. It then appears that the seller (realizing that he had two good offers, and rather than being honest) created a 10-minute “confirmation time limit”; in order to extricate himself from the first deal. It might also be argued that THIS was also an attempt by the seller to create a bidding-war environment - providing the original buyer responded quickly enough. …Or we could just call it a moving target.
While one is certainly entitled to getting the most $ one can for their gear and selling it to whomever one chooses; it would only seem prudent that these considerations be made prior accepting an offer from a prospective buyer. Not afterward.
It only seems reasonable that this seller (and those members who would act similarly) be held accountable to the Audiogon community. This type of behavior demonstrates a general lack of foresight, patience, good judgment, and questionable ethics. …In the end this member is simply a person who would just as soon waste the time of others as not.
Shoddy dealings such as these are the exact kind of information I want to know about when I reference a member's feedback. …So I can avoid them! …Who knows what else might be awry.
Audiogon:
Assuming that the originator of this thread is giving an accurate representation of the transaction or “non-transaction” as it were, a negative rating for the offender would seem more than justified. While every successful transaction via Audiogon constitutes acts of good faith for the parties involved this particular seller could hardly be described as “acting in good faith.”
The members responding to this post appear find Audiogon’s current stipulations regarding negative feedback lacking. What, if anything will you do to address this apparent concern/desire to post negative feedback under circumstances such as those in this post - in which there appears a consensus that it IS warranted?