Jump to content

Which one do you agree with?


www.

Which is correct?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the seller refund the extra collateral if the buyer overpaid in a trade? (If not deceived)

    • No, it's the buyer's responsibility to check what's being traded before completing the trade.
    • Yes, it would be considered scamming otherwise.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If someone makes a mistake or doesn't like what they bought, the seller shouldn't have to provide a refund if the seller doesn't want to. Why should the seller be responsible over the buyer's stupidity or personal taste?


 


In the instance of overpaying, the seller shouldn't be held responsible unless he purposefully made the buyer overpay.


If the buyer asked for clarification on the price, says a price that is overpaying, and the seller claims that that is the price, then the seller should be held responsible. If the buyer overpaid on accident without the seller having said anything, then the seller shouldn't be held responsible.


 


I've had people overpay in pure for some of my items by readying up before I provided change. Should I get permanently banned for that? Heck no.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, making the opposite opinion sound stupid on purpose isn't professional when it comes to a serious issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone gave me 0.33, 5 weps and a S. Hitman's Heatmaker for a Unique Zatochi

 

Should I get marked as a scammer on Steam? Hell naw!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, making the opposite opinion sound stupid on purpose isn't professional when it comes to a serious issue.

Refer to chat log screenshot provided above

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sucks to be him but really it's not worth getting banned over a key. I know there's the matter of personal responsibility on the victim's side, but it's just not worth it. He can't win this by holding out either.

 

It's similar to ScootisMcPootis' incident but on a tiny scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me something you feel is more appropriate then

Title: "Should the Seller be held responsible for the Buyer's actions?"

Answer 1: No, the seller shouldn't be held responsible if the buyer makes a mistake during the trade.

Answer 2: Yes, the seller should be held responsible should a buyer mess up the trade.

 

Or just "Should the Seller be held responsible?" "Yes" "No"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Title: "Should the Seller be held responsible for the Buyer's actions?"

Answer 1: No, the seller shouldn't be held responsible if the buyer makes a mistake during the trade.

Answer 2: Yes, the seller should be held responsible should a buyer mess up the trade.

 

Or just "Should the Seller be held responsible?" "Yes" "No"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Sound Effect-

You switched the votes around. Now 4 people think the seller SHOULD be held responsible

 

Edit: That's better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the buyer makes a mistake but doesn't say anything, I don't think the seller is responsible for that. If the buyer realizes they made a mistake and notifies the seller, I think the nice thing to do would be to correct the mistake. I wouldn't have a problem with the seller refusing though, as it wasn't their fault.

 

I would never give someone being abusive and rude a refund, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Woifi The Viking, July 11, 2014 - unnecessary
Hidden by Woifi The Viking, July 11, 2014 - unnecessary

 

I watched Key and Peele in that little Box after hearing the noise

Link to comment

In this case, yes the seller should be responsible for it. Everyone makes mistakes and you are taking an advantage for it which is unacceptable. The 1 key is NOT his anyway, as it was given by mistake, and what's so hard to give it back in the first place. It's just a key. What's so hard about giving back a key which is not yours at all?

 

If the buyer was rude about it, this action is kind of make sense. But you haven't heard from the buyer's side and you can't really tell who's being a jerk here. And it's indeed somekind of a scam because first, the buyer didn't realize that he is paying more than the agreed price. Second, the seller without a doubt run away and take advantage of it.

 

At least that's what I saw here. Peace, mate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, yes the seller should be responsible for it. Everyone makes mistakes and you are taking an advantage for it which is unacceptable. The 1 key is NOT his anyway, as it was given by mistake, and what's so hard to give it back in the first place. It's just a key. What's so hard about giving back a key which is not yours at all?

 

If the buyer was rude about it, this action is kind of make sense. But you haven't heard from the buyer's side and you can't really tell who's being a jerk here. And it's indeed somekind of a scam because first, the buyer didn't realize that he is paying more than the agreed price. Second, the seller without a doubt run away and take advantage of it.

 

It's not a scam, it's a mistake. A scam would be if the seller tried to trick him into paying more, which he didn't. The buyer simply put too much up and realized he messed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case, yes the seller should be responsible for it. Everyone makes mistakes and you are taking an advantage for it which is unacceptable. The 1 key is NOT his anyway, as it was given by mistake, and what's so hard to give it back in the first place. It's just a key. What's so hard about giving back a key which is not yours at all?

 

If the buyer was rude about it, this action is kind of make sense. But you haven't heard from the buyer's side and you can't really tell who's being a jerk here. And it's indeed somekind of a scam because first, the buyer didn't realize that he is paying more than the agreed price. Second, the seller without a doubt run away and take advantage of it.

 

At least that's what I saw here. Peace, mate.

1. Yes people make mistakes, but he could have easily quadruple checked the trade before accepting and sending it. Kid should not be hasty.

2. Please look up the definition of the word "Scam" before improperly using it.

3. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a scam, it's a mistake. A scam would be if the seller tried to trick him into paying more, which he didn't. The buyer simply put too much up and realized he messed up.

But the seller get more than the first price agreement and refused to give back, isn't it? Well it's not actually a scam, but kind of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the seller get more than the first price agreement and refused to give back, isn't it? Well it's not actually a scam, but kind of one.

 

Still doesn't count as a scam. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still doesn't count as a scam.

Guess I picked the wrong word there. Huge apology that my first language wasn't English. Let's just call it similar to scam (or just unfair), as the trade was completely not following the agreement and one side refused to correct that mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the seller get more than the first price agreement and refused to give back, isn't it? Well it's not actually a scam, but kind of one.

 

It's not any kind of scam. The worst I'd call it is a shark since he didn't let the guy know he put up too much. And even then a "real" shark would be to tell him it's worth more in order to get him to pay more (and even THEN, it should be the buyers responsibility to research the prices themselves).

 

It's an accident by the buyer which the seller tried to capitalize on for no good reason. It wass unethical to keep that extra key, but it's not any kind of scam.

 

Guess I picked the wrong word there. Huge apology that my first language wasn't English. Let's just call it similar to scam (or just unfair), as the trade was completely not following the agreement and one side refused to correct that mistake.

 

Okay, sorry if I came across as harsh. Just the specific term "scam" would mean the seller deliberately made the buyer pay more for his item, which wasn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was the seller and somebody said that, I would have had the guy explain what happened and why extra was in the trade in the first place? If he politely explains with good detail then i'll gladly give him the extra payment back, but if he turns vicious and yells and insults me, then he just lost his refund.

 

All in all, doesn't matter as it's the buyers fault for not  checking. The buyer is the one who needs to overlook the trade until they are 100% sure everything is correct and in order before proceeding with the trade. Especially when the seller is an automated bot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess I picked the wrong word there. Huge apology that my first language wasn't English. Let's just call it similar to scam (or just unfair), as the trade was completely not following the agreement and one side refused to correct that mistake.

The seller was an automated trading bot, first of all so how is it the bots fault? The kid did not check the trade and just rushed through it and didn't bother to check anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Outpost and SteamRep, a scam occurs when either party breaks the trade agreement. If the agreement is to sell an unusual for 30 buds, the buyer adds 31 by accident and the seller accepts they are now in possession of a bud they don't rightfully own. If they refuse a tradeback they are breaking the terms of their agreement. This of course applies for less macroscopic trades for just a key.

 

Of course this applies to trade bots too, if they accept more items than was agreed then the other party has every right to ask for them back and we will enforce this right.

 

People find it hard to see keeping an accidental key as a scam and I can understand that, but if you're keeping an extra bud that was in there by mistake you're keeping a bud you have no right to and it's the logical extension that the same applies to smaller trades.

 

The question put in this thread is extremely loaded:

 

  1.  No, the seller shouldn't be held responsible if the buyer makes a mistake during the trade.
  2.  Yes, the seller should be held responsible should a buyer mess up the trade.

 

The first option implies the seller is being held responsible for the buyer's mistake which is not the case. The seller is being held responsible for keeping the extra item(s) they have no right to. The buyer is only being held responsible for their own actions, namely keeping items that they have no purchase on.

 

The questions imply that what is up for debate here is whether if the buyer makes a blunder the seller should pay for that blunder, and this is absolutely not the case. If the seller ends up with more than was decided on and keeps those items then they are scamming the other user.

 

This applies in both respects and it's important to realise by agreeing with the premise that if the seller makes a mistake the same should apply:

 

If the seller and the buyer agree on an exchange of an unusual hat for 100 buds and the buyer puts up 87 buds and the trade goes through I can't imagine any of you would be saying that 'The buyer should not be held responsible if the seller makes a mistake' because what has happened here is that the buyer has scammed the seller out of 13 buds, they have broken the trade agreement because the seller is 13 buds short of what was agreed.

 

 

If you still truly believe that the seller does not have to make good on the mistakes of the buyer, just imagine you yourself accidentally put up a burning unusual instead of a steaming unusual. By those principles the other trader should be able to say 'well, you shouldn't have made the mistake', and be off with your much more valuable hat.

 

You can't deny other people rights you yourself expect to have.

 

Breaking the trade agreement is scamming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...