Obviously the buyer isn’t on the hook for $2000, he did nothing wrong, and the seller shouldn’t have to take less than she put it up for. The only fair way is to void the entire transaction, and allow her to reissue it at $2000
From the buyer’s viewpoint, they saw an item offered for $1000, agreed to buy it for $1000, and the transaction completed at that price. No question that they did nothing wrong.
From the seller’s viewpoint, at the moment when they decided to change the price, they were aware that it might not be possible, if someone had already bought the item at the lower price. When they went to the website and saw that that had not yet happened, they went ahead with their price change, but even at that point, a sale might have occured during the few seconds when they were typing the new price. From their viewpoint, that’s pretty much exactly what happened. The fact that the website apparently has some glitch with timestamping the events correctly is unfortunate, but doesn’t change the dynamics. The seller tried to change their price after they had already made a valid offer at a lower price, and missed their chance to do so.
The sale should be voided and both seller and buyer should take their business to a less shitty ecommerce platform.
Right.
The buyer made the decision to buy the item at the lower price, so gets it at the $1000 price.
I might get annoyed if someone who had no business in my neighborhood repeatedly parking in front of my house, but they have as much right as anybody, I guess. If the person lives or works across the street (as in the pollster’s case) they have just as much business parking there as I do.
This is my perspective, too. My second choice is that the buyer gets the thing for $1000, because the seller made a mistake.
There’s no world on which the buyer is on the hook for $2000, though.
Ignore my post above. It was meant for another thread.
E-commerce bug - other.
The shitty e-commerce site sent confirmation to both buyer and seller that it sold at their agreed amounts, that’s their error. They get to eat the cost difference which should get them to fix their system.
I actually voted to confess to my wife about the erotic dream, though I’d fudge the person in question. The reason is that when I have really vivid dreams (whether sexual, fighting/anger, or other poor behavior) I often wake up feeling really guilty otherwords.
Oh, to be clear, when I say anger/fighting, it wouldn’t be violent, but in dreams I’ve sometimes dealt low blows or other unfair/unjust verbal violence!
And this was a lot worse when I was taking melatonin with my doctor’s knowledge - it might take a few minutes to sort out it was all a dream after waking up!
So I’d confess, feel better about myself, and move on. I would then lavish some extra luuuuuurrrvvv on my wife to make sure she knew I loved her more than anything.
Even though I’m the one who first suggested (in the World Cup thread) that Balogun voluntarily sit out today’s game to uphold the integrity of referee calls over political interventions, I voted here that someone in his situation should go ahead and play. Other posters convinced me it would harm the innocent without changing FIFA corruption.
I did just now see that FIFA was claiming to give consideration to the Belgian team’s petition to reinstate the original suspension, for whatever that’s worth.
I didn’t answer the poll, but would i as a player want to play? I have to think i would. That doesn’t seem relevant to any of the larger questions.
Yes I would play, and so should Balogun if he is able to. People will call it corrupt, people will call it unfair and put Cheeto’s stink all over it, but if the US wins against Belgium, no one will be talking about it for very long after the game. Balogun already handled it with grace and professionalism on the field. Decisions that are made off the field are out of his control.
Yes the player should play, FIFA being corrupt is not his fault and he must do everything in his power to get his team as far as possible.
I feel for Balogun. Depending on who to believe, FIFA, Trump, and/or US Soccer have turned him into a pariah. He’s in a no-win situation. Were I in his position, I would play. I’m glad I’m not, though.
Only IMHO, but were I in the position (the premise of the poll) I would NOT play. Because I’d assume that it would taint the perceptions of everyone I interacted with in the sport going forward. It wouldn’t be absolutely fair for others to judge me for the actions of the corrupt president, but I’m positive it would be a part of every evaluation of me as a person and player going forward.
Easier to take the high road for the one game, and keep a bit more of my pride and respect going forward.
That said, that is if it were for -me-. You don’t get to the position of that player without a near-overwhelming dedication to the sport and the desire to prove yourself. I wouldn’t judge the IRL individual or others saying they’d do it his his specific place as being wrong for choosing to play.
I only voted “not play” because I know exactly which corrupt head of state is being referred to. I would happily throw away my whole athletic career to piss that asshole off.
Yes I didn’t want it to be a judgement against the clear subject of the poll
I see your point, but the WC only comes around every four years, and there’s no guarantee your country will qualify for the next one or you’ll make that team. A lot could happen, and it’s quite an honor to play for your country in the WC. It may be only one game, but it could also be your last chance.
As I said, I don’t judge anyone for choosing to play, there are a lot of compelling reasons that I listed, and others including yourself suggested. Just the answer for me, myself and I. And I’m sure not matter which answer you chose, it wouldn’t be without a LOT of future second guessing.
Evidently in this I am the evil twin, but it would be unthinkable for me to be allowed to play for the national team and refuse, no matter the context, my inner child, who dreamed of wearing that shirt, would disown me.
I’m with you. If the rules say you can play, how can you sit out and not play? And how can it reflect badly on a player to do his best within the rules to help his team.