Would like input from some of you about this

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im with everyone else,it is not the senders fault that the M.O got the big flush-o-la.The sources child is the sources responsibility alone and he will have to wait to get the $$.Hopefully he has learned to keep his kid under control to prevent this from happening again.

S.
 
The source should have to wait. The flushed MO wasn't your fault... its not like he didn't receive it.
 
Now all you need to do is point the source to this thread, and he will see that it is on him, not the customer. I wonder who this source is anyway. hmm
 
tyhigs said:
Now all you need to do is point the source to this thread, and he will see that it is on him, not the customer. I wonder who this source is anyway. hmm

Who it is, is none of our business.

But I was wondering too if he might be seeing this thread...
 
My .02

Gonna confirm basically what everyone else has, his burden. Plus, someone gives me 6 bills, I'm sure as hell not leaving it around for people to screw with, kid or not. I don't care if it's a MO, check, cash, traveler's check or a flippin' IOU on a napkin, put it in safe keeping until you can cash it. That's not even business savvy, just personal smarts. IMO. :cool:
 
I would need to know one more thing. What is the nature of the relationship between the customer and the source.....is this a first time deal or a regular thing?
If this was my favorite guy who had always done me right in many transactions, I'd sure as hell send him some money. Good, honest dealers are hard to find. However, if it was a first time kind of thing, I'm keepin my money.
 
So after 30 days there is no cash surrender value to the money order?

If that's the case, wait 30 days and make good on your deal. You did get the shit and you know 100% he didn't get the money/cash the MO.

If you get the money back and he didn't get paid, you're a reverse scammer.

He was a dumb shit for leaving the MO where a child could get a hold of it but he did right by you and you should do the same.
 
What if his child had flushed $600 in cash down the toliet??? The same thing..its the source's problem...and the customer is doing the right thing by even deciding to wait 30 days and send another check...
 
StoneColdNTO said:
IMO....the source should have to wait, after all he did receive the money order, not the customers fault it got flushed.

BTW, why in the hell would someone start flushing paper down the can anyways.....LOL !!.....damn good thing he never sent cash.


Exactly

Also was the $2250 sent to this same source? Because that sounds fishy too....
 
ironmaster said:
I would need to know one more thing. What is the nature of the relationship between the customer and the source.....is this a first time deal or a regular thing?
If this was my favorite guy who had always done me right in many transactions, I'd sure as hell send him some money. Good, honest dealers are hard to find. However, if it was a first time kind of thing, I'm keepin my money.

It was a first time deal between the source and consumer.
 
gorilla_boy said:
So after 30 days there is no cash surrender value to the money order?

If that's the case, wait 30 days and make good on your deal. You did get the shit and you know 100% he didn't get the money/cash the MO.

If you get the money back and he didn't get paid, you're a reverse scammer.

He was a dumb shit for leaving the MO where a child could get a hold of it but he did right by you and you should do the same.

All intentions were on the consumers part to re-send the source the MO when the post office made the new MO available in 30 days. There was never any idea in the consumers mind to keep the money from the money order. The issue was that the source was basically saying "I know I lost the Money Order, but you have product and now I want my money" but the source knew full well that the $600.00 MO cannot be re-issued until 30 days is up.
 
I think you should split it, 50-50 as a sign of good faith.
If it is a good source I would send him the extra money.

A good source is worth that
 
BiggieSwolls said:
All intentions were on the consumers part to re-send the source the MO when the post office made the new MO available in 30 days. There was never any idea in the consumers mind to keep the money from the money order. The issue was that the source was basically saying "I know I lost the Money Order, but you have product and now I want my money" but the source knew full well that the $600.00 MO cannot be re-issued until 30 days is up.

My thoughts on it were directed at the guys that thought it was cool to not pay the guy AT ALL after receiving the gear and getting the money back.

You're not out anything except a little time to send the MO again after the 30 days is up and you got what you were supposed to get.

What goes around comes around.
 
If you assume that the customer trusts the source 100% and there is no doubt that the customer won't be losing his extra $600, AND you assume that it will not be a financial hardship on the customer, AND it will be a hardship on the source, then I suppose I'd send another money order.

That is a lot of assumptions, and I don't know whether the facts match them. The customer did exactly what he was supposed to do and remains willing to do what he needs to do to make sure the source gets paid in 30 days. It seems the source is asking for a lot here, but if he is a really solid good man, I'd go the extra mile in the right set of circumstances.
 
Personally I think the source should wait. Sure he sent the gear ahead and that is very decent but as said before, if it was $600 in cash would he have said the same thing? Besides if my source sends me say $600 in tabs, and I am stupid enough to leave it where my kid can flush them, the should I go to my source and expect him to refund or resend the product? I mean, seriously at least the guy will get his cash--which actually he already got--in 30 days. Its not like he is going to be ripped off.
 
If I did business with someone like that for the first time and he told me a story like that,I would call "BULLSHIT".Sounds too fishy to me.
 
The source isn't out anything if he waits the 30 days and like Biggie says, customer is willing to resend. If the source is that hard up for cash, maybe he shouldn't have sent early before he got the dough. But he did, and mishandled the payment. He should wait, but definitely get his money eventually.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top