Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:37 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Forum rules


Feedback for dealers regarding experience OUTSIDE of CAM must go in the Dealer Feedback Forum.



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Smalltown, ON, CA
Seems to me that, in some folks' eyes, the law and it's definitions (including sale contracts), is the standard to which one should aspire; and to some of us it represents the minimum that is acceptable. I tend, as Phil does, to fall into the latter; often to my detriment. However, I just look at it as a cost of being me. To each his own............ everyone has their own filters!

_________________
Some people like the taste of smokey whiskey, others think that tea's too strong!!
Even if you've tried it, consider the six blind men describing the elephant before offering your opinion!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline
Dealer/Sponsor

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 1172
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
Philosophil wrote:
daren_p wrote:
In this case, I would run it by the mods. In order to leave feedback, you need to exchange funds, this did happens (but then the seller sent them back). Personally I would want the feedback listed as this is someone I would not deal with as he doesn't seem very ethical.

I don't pretend to speak for the Administration here but my sense is that many of its rules and guidelines rest upon and are intended to preserve certain well-established legal and ethical principles (and values).

There's a well-regarded moral principle that says you should never treat persons merely as a means to an end. The principle rests on a distinction between instrumental or use value (or 'utility' if you will) and intrinsic value, and affirms that all persons have intrinsic value over and above any use value they may have, and that you should respect the intrinsic value of persons (which is the primary basis for claims against slavery and so on).

This principle doesn't prevent anyone from getting utility value from others, it merely says that you should never reduce a person to his or her utility or use-value.

Principles that put things like 'sales,' viewed as ends or goals, ahead of people run the risk of violating this well-regarded ethical principle, for they encourage an attitude in which the end of accumulating sales becomes more important than the idea of treating people with respect.



It's also (rambling out loud) that the forum proper, as an entity, cannot get it's self involved in any 'Imperial entanglements'. Meaning, it cannot involve itself in any of the financial issues and sales connections, period. That would be leaving the forum ownership open to potential legal action, in each and every sale, and that's an accident waiting to happen. One where it is just a matter of time.

So forum members must be on their own, unless the entire system is switched over (another rabbit hole of inexperience, gaffes, and complexities) to deep forum involvement and compensation for such, which is a thing done by eBay, paypal, and audiogon. Which has it's own issues.

Which means the forum sales area is no place to take an emotionally or expectation based mental projection of a flyer of any sort. zero assumptions. Check each thought and each motion for assumption loopholes and gaffe potential.

No one has got your back except you and if things are done simply and correctly, there will likely never be any problems.

As per usual when being humans, we will each make some mistakes. Only after we've made those mistakes, and strive to do so no more..will we look so dang perfect - in the eyes of others.

I'd expect, for example, that Voodoo made some of those mistakes, or was connected to a few scenarios, long ago (just like everyone one else)... and they simply don't happen any more.

_________________
(Ken Hotte, of) Teo Audio


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 2:12 pm
Posts: 401
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
ripblade wrote:
xr4ti wrote:
when you get the product after paying
Good point. I'm still awaiting a needle I ordered before Cmas. Overseas vendor (eBay) supplied a tracking number but it's yet to be registered with Canada Post. Does this constitute a sale? I don't think so...

Hope you funded Paypal with a credit card. That way you can claim against the cc company. Who will be automatically refunded by Paypal.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 13865
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
xr4ti wrote:
ripblade wrote:
xr4ti wrote:
when you get the product after paying
Good point. I'm still awaiting a needle I ordered before Cmas. Overseas vendor (eBay) supplied a tracking number but it's yet to be registered with Canada Post. Does this constitute a sale? I don't think so...

Hope you funded Paypal with a credit card. That way you can claim against the cc company. Who will be automatically refunded by Paypal.
For CAM deals there's Interac, for everything else there's Mastercard. 8)

_________________
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:52 pm
Posts: 3335
Location: Lasalle, ON, CA
RalphH wrote:
It would be nice if Phil clarified how the principle of never treat a person as a means to an end applies in this case.

It often amazes me that people assume that agreements on price on cash and carry sales create binding contracts. I'm not a lawyer, just a retired accountant, but best I know sales contracts aren't set until there is an exchange of consideration, ie money.

Now I agree perhaps the seller should be clear they expect payment before they will hold the goods for a buyer and preferably that is made clear, not vague as in "I have other people that are interested".

I haven't sold a lot of stuff on line but for almost every item I have sold lately I gotten phone calls or emails from interested parties saying they will be right over to pick it up or I will be over by a specific time and they did not show.

Sellers have to be able to protect their own interests & accept a sure offer.

First, the moral principle cited does not say "never threat a person as a means to an end," but 'Never treat a person merely as a means to an end.' I deliberately placed 'merely' in italics to highlight its importance. On this principle there's nothing wrong with treating persons as means to some end as long as you also treat them with the respect owing to their status as persons, e.g. you pay them fairly for their labour, you're considerate of their safety, health, and so on while they're working for you, you don't try to take 'advantage' of them, you respect their own 'nature' as free moral agents, you extend to them at the very least the most basic forms of courtesy, decency, and so on (making 'friends' has nothing to do with it).

When I hire someone to fix my plumbing I'm taking advantage of their use-value, i.e. their knowledge, skills, and so on, as plumbers. On this principle it's perfectly fine for us to do this as long as we also treat the people we deal with in such transactions with the respect they are due as persons. The simplest way of expressing this is to say that you should never just 'use' people. I'm sure most of us know what it's like to be 'used' by someone else and it's that kind of thing that is at issue here.

Second, we need to be careful not to confuse moral obligations with legal obligations. In many cases they may overlap considerably to the point where at times they seem to be one and the same, but they are very different kinds of things. The absence of a legal obligation, for example, does not entail the absence of a moral obligation. It may be possible to avoid paying taxes, for example, by finding some loophole in the legal system, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have a moral obligation to pay those taxes (as a way of doing one's fair share, if you will, in helping maintain a well-ordered society). So just because something is not legally binding, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no moral obligation involved.

As for the case being discussed here, if we accept the account given at its face value then while the seller may not have a legal obligation to sell the item to the buyer (and may have discharged any legal obligation by refunding the buyer's money) it doesn't follow that there was no moral obligation to sell to the buyer, as a kind of false promise on the seller's part (which on this principle is generally not allowed). As others have already mentioned, setting reasonable time limits on transactions and making sure the buyer is forewarned about this up front may be a good way of avoiding this kind of thing.

Now prospective buyers who renege on their promises to buy are also often guilty of the same thing, wasting the seller's time and effort, so it works both ways. But on the moral principle cited, just because some potential buyers act that way doesn't mean we should create rules that treat all potential buyers as promise breakers, for if we do that we are not respecting their status as free moral individuals but are painting them all with the same 'negative' brush if you will.

_________________
Phil


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 6:43 am
Posts: 2019
Location: Québec, QC, CA
We need ABTN to validated your view on Kantian's ethics.... :lol:

-- 09 Feb 2017 19:41 --

Philosophil wrote:

Second, we need to be careful not to confuse moral obligations with legal obligations. In many cases they may overlap considerably to the point where at times they seem to be one and the same, but they are very different kinds of things. The absence of a legal obligation, for example, does not entail the absence of a moral obligation. It may be possible to avoid paying taxes, for example, by finding some loophole in the legal system, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have a moral obligation to pay those taxes (as a way of doing one's fair share, if you will, in helping maintain a well-ordered society). So just because something is not legally binding, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no moral obligation involved.



Fiscal laws are identical in logic to criminal laws. If it's not clearly forbidden it's allowed.... This is the basis of a lucrative practice and so many problems...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 7854
Location: Burlington, ON, CA
If you can set your own rules as a dealer or gear flipper, and you thrive, then you're good at it.

_________________
"I'm not Inspector Gadget!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:11 pm
Posts: 1028
Location: Somewhere Way Out West
Philosophil wrote:
RalphH wrote:
It would be nice if Phil clarified how the principle of never treat a person as a means to an end applies in this case...



Second, we need to be careful not to confuse moral obligations with legal obligations. In many cases they may overlap considerably to the point where at times they seem to be one and the same, but they are very different kinds of things. The absence of a legal obligation, for example, does not entail the absence of a moral obligation. It may be possible to avoid paying taxes, for example, by finding some loophole in the legal system, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have a moral obligation to pay those taxes (as a way of doing one's fair share, if you will, in helping maintain a well-ordered society). So just because something is not legally binding, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no moral obligation involved.

As for the case being discussed here, if we accept the account given at its face value then while the seller may not have a legal obligation to sell the item to the buyer (and may have discharged any legal obligation by refunding the buyer's money) it doesn't follow that there was no moral obligation to sell to the buyer, as a kind of false promise on the seller's part


Hmmm. I am often a little bemused and bewildered by the philosophical bent to twist the most ethical and moral considerations out of simple day to day interactions. I say this as someone who has read and studied a fair amount (for a layman) of ethical and moral philosophy.

For example what "end" do you assume the prospective seller gained from this frustrated buyer? What exactly did the buyer lose beyond an illusion?

Frankly I often wonder if people could really go about their day to day interactions if they had to pause and ponder in such a manner.

Last plumber I hired charged $180 for the 1st hour and $105 per hour or part thereof after. I find little chance I will wonder if abrogated a moral obligation at that price.

Frankly people have to prepare themselves when they go out into the world. Don't assume all people will consider their moral obligations to you. I say this both as something of a lefty and as someone who was once employed in a correctional institution.

For my part, and with respect I am unsure if you have simply confused a moral obligation with mere politeness.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 3:38 am
Posts: 1
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
I would side with the seller here. The buyer was warned that other interested parties had engaged the seller. The indication from the buyer that he would pay later that evening was presumptuous. Instead he should have asked for time to pay. Until a definite agreement to buy and agreement to sell is expressed by each party, the item remains for sale and can be bought at any time.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 5:52 pm 
Offline
Premium User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:44 pm
Posts: 6100
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
ClevelandBrownsFan wrote:
I would side with the seller here. The buyer was warned that other interested parties had engaged the seller. The indication from the buyer that he would pay later that evening was presumptuous. Instead he should have asked for time to pay. Until a definite agreement to buy and agreement to sell is expressed by each party, the item remains for sale and can be bought at any time.


Pretty simple really. 8)

_________________
I Put A Spell On You!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:52 pm
Posts: 3335
Location: Lasalle, ON, CA
RalphH wrote:
Philosophil wrote:
RalphH wrote:
It would be nice if Phil clarified how the principle of never treat a person as a means to an end applies in this case...



Second, we need to be careful not to confuse moral obligations with legal obligations. In many cases they may overlap considerably to the point where at times they seem to be one and the same, but they are very different kinds of things. The absence of a legal obligation, for example, does not entail the absence of a moral obligation. It may be possible to avoid paying taxes, for example, by finding some loophole in the legal system, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have a moral obligation to pay those taxes (as a way of doing one's fair share, if you will, in helping maintain a well-ordered society). So just because something is not legally binding, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no moral obligation involved.

As for the case being discussed here, if we accept the account given at its face value then while the seller may not have a legal obligation to sell the item to the buyer (and may have discharged any legal obligation by refunding the buyer's money) it doesn't follow that there was no moral obligation to sell to the buyer, as a kind of false promise on the seller's part


Hmmm. I am often a little bemused and bewildered by the philosophical bent to twist the most ethical and moral considerations out of simple day to day interactions. I say this as someone who has read and studied a fair amount (for a layman) of ethical and moral philosophy.

For example what "end" do you assume the prospective seller gained from this frustrated buyer? What exactly did the buyer lose beyond an illusion?

Frankly I often wonder if people could really go about their day to day interactions if they had to pause and ponder in such a manner.

Last plumber I hired charged $180 for the 1st hour and $105 per hour or part thereof after. I find little chance I will wonder if abrogated a moral obligation at that price.

Frankly people have to prepare themselves when they go out into the world. Don't assume all people will consider their moral obligations to you. I say this both as something of a lefty and as someone who was once employed in a correctional institution.

For my part, and with respect I am unsure if you have simply confused a moral obligation with mere politeness.

I'm sorry you find ethical discussions so bemusing. Beyond that I'm not sure what to say.

I will say that most of us have general rules and principles that we follow as guides to everyday action (we've seen some good examples of such general maxims in this very thread). Most of the time we don't think much about our guiding maxims but simply follow them in a kind of automatic manner. Sometimes, however, we might wonder after the fact if the way we acted in a given situation was right or not and this usually leads to some degree of philosophical reflection. Sometimes we try to modify or alter our maxims or principles as a result of such reflection, vowing to try to act better in the future, and other times we leave them as they are (for whatever reason). The main point of such reflection in the vast majority of circumstances is to modify how we might behave in the future so that we don't repeat the problems or mistakes of the past, vowing to do better or try harder (e.g vowing to try not to yell so much at your kids, vowing to try not to get so impatient with your aging mother, or vowing to try to be more helpful around the house for one's spouse, and other kinds of commonplace examples).

As for the example at hand, the end that was gained by the seller was probably something like the maximizing profit by selling to someone else after having first accepted payment from first buyer, while the buyer lost an opportunity to purchase an item because of a false, broken, or misleading promise that was made by the seller, as well as the time and effort wasted in the process. There's nothing 'illusory' here. Lost or diminished opportunities have real effects, plain and simple and many a lawsuit has been waged and won over such things.

Ethics relates to action and specifically it relates to questions about how we as moral agents 'ought' to behave. This doesn't mean that all people all the time actually behave as they ought to, I don't know anyone who believes that. I live in the same world you do and we all know that there are some people who are nasty a lot of the time and some who are nasty some of the time, but most people tend to be good, decent people most of the time.

It's true that etiquette relates to how we 'ought' to behave, but it differs from ethics primarily in that where etiquette tends to be a matter of custom or convention, ethics tends to be more principled in one sense or another. But while etiquette is different from ethics, there may be good ethical reasons for following general rules of etiquette in most situations (unless the rules of etiquette are themselves ethically problematic in some important sense).

It's actually encouraging to hear you've done some reading in ethics and moral issues. Thanks for the comments.

Anyway, I've said too much already in this thread and so leave the discussion to others.

Enjoy.

_________________
Phil


Last edited by Philosophil on Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:17 am
Posts: 13865
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
RalphH wrote:
Philosophil wrote:
RalphH wrote:
It would be nice if Phil clarified how the principle of never treat a person as a means to an end applies in this case...



Second, we need to be careful not to confuse moral obligations with legal obligations. In many cases they may overlap considerably to the point where at times they seem to be one and the same, but they are very different kinds of things. The absence of a legal obligation, for example, does not entail the absence of a moral obligation. It may be possible to avoid paying taxes, for example, by finding some loophole in the legal system, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have a moral obligation to pay those taxes (as a way of doing one's fair share, if you will, in helping maintain a well-ordered society). So just because something is not legally binding, it doesn't necessarily follow that there's no moral obligation involved.

As for the case being discussed here, if we accept the account given at its face value then while the seller may not have a legal obligation to sell the item to the buyer (and may have discharged any legal obligation by refunding the buyer's money) it doesn't follow that there was no moral obligation to sell to the buyer, as a kind of false promise on the seller's part


Hmmm. I am often a little bemused and bewildered by the philosophical bent to twist the most ethical and moral considerations out of simple day to day interactions. I say this as someone who has read and studied a fair amount (for a layman) of ethical and moral philosophy.

For example what "end" do you assume the prospective seller gained from this frustrated buyer? What exactly did the buyer lose beyond an illusion?

Frankly I often wonder if people could really go about their day to day interactions if they had to pause and ponder in such a manner.

Last plumber I hired charged $180 for the 1st hour and $105 per hour or part thereof after. I find little chance I will wonder if abrogated a moral obligation at that price.

Frankly people have to prepare themselves when they go out into the world. Don't assume all people will consider their moral obligations to you. I say this both as something of a lefty and as someone who was once employed in a correctional institution.

For my part, and with respect I am unsure if you have simply confused a moral obligation with mere politeness.

Not speaking for Phil, but I think what he's saying is you should respect the plumber and his hourly rate, not just offer him a glass of water.

Ah never mind, Phil already spoke lol...

_________________
To a hammer, everything looks like a nail


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:37 pm
Posts: 2740
Location: London, ON, CA
Done Deal.
Attachment:
Done Deal.jpg
Done Deal.jpg [ 57.83 KiB | Viewed 427 times ]

Regards
Ohms

_________________
When you feel the need to upgrade, buy what you like, not what we want...
I stand for the National Anthem.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:34 pm 
Offline
Premium User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:08 pm
Posts: 18450
Location: Montreal, QC, CA
AudiOhm wrote:
Done Deal.
Attachment:
Done Deal.jpg

Regards
Ohms


And THAT is the ONLY definitive way to ensure that a sale is really a sale. Offer extended by buyer, offer accepted by seller, money and goods exchanged.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:41 am
Posts: 7854
Location: Burlington, ON, CA
RalphH wrote:
For my part, and with respect I am unsure if you have simply confused a moral obligation with mere politeness.



Politeness is a moral value, just sayin'.... :wink:

_________________
"I'm not Inspector Gadget!"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 145 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group