Would like input from some of you about this

[BiggieSwolls]

So say this is a hypothetical situation.

You are talking to a source, you are purchasing $600.00 worth of product. He tells you he is sending the product and he asks you to provide him with a tracking number for the funds when you send them. You end up sending the funds out when the Post Office re-opens that following monday (you were speaking with him on a friday). But.......you sent the funds via blank money order because the postal service just "lost" a package of yours with $2250.00 cash in it and you are quite pissed about it plus you have been assured that a "lost" money order can at least be reimbursed to you.

So you send the Money order and give him a tracking number. He tells you that it is not standard for him to recieve money orders but because of the situation with the "lost" cash, he will accept the money order as long as it cashes easily at his bank (which it will, this was checked). You end up recieving your product and you are awaiting to hear from your source about when he receives your funds. Your source emails a day later to tell you that he received the money order but unfortunately, someone at his house flushed the money order by accident. He asks you to get in touch with the post office to see what they can do about the flushed money order. So a phone call is made to the post office where the money order was purchased and they say that a 'duplicate slip' needs to be filled out and 30 days after the day it is filled out, the cash will be reimbursed or a duplicate money order will be sent out. When you inform your source that he will need to wait 30 days because of the mishandling of the money order, he tells you to send him more money because he shouldnt have to wait 30 days for an order that he already sent out.

My question is, what is a proper outcome here? Do you feel it is fair that the buyer in this case should now end up having sent $1200.00 of which he gets $600.00 back in 30 days? Or should the source have to wait the 30 days because of the mishandling of the money order?

Im just curious here as to what you all think?

And for the record, Im not the customer or the source. Was just told of this situation by some other mods and wasnt quite sure what the best outcome would be.

 

[StoneColdNTO]

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.

 

[kube]

if the man flushed the shit down the toilet, its his own problem. business is business bro. he got paid, its his business if he wants to be careless with the money. or money order. thats what i think.

 

[Drveejay11]

I agree with SC............totally the source's responsibility to make good.

 

[BUFFDAWG10]

The funds were sent, it's not the customers fault that the handling of the funds were so careless! I definitely would not send more money!!!

 

[zwarrior99]

Hes even lucky your going to send him the money again! Hell his responsibility if he lost it his fault.

 

[BiggieSwolls]

Just to add because I dont want people making a decision based on any info missing.

- it was a young child that flushed the money order by accident. (not exactly the sources fault but he could have kept it out of the childs way)
- the source was nice enough to send the product before the money was sent
- when it was first told to the source that a blank money order was sent, he wasnt too keen on the idea. but once it was told to him that a money order from the post office is as good as cash and can be cashed at any bank without having to clear an account, he was ok with it
- direct quote from the source in last email to customer in which they are haggling about whether or not the customer should send more money: "if you've been around the boards for awhile and i know you have ;-) ,then please do the right thing and give me what you owe, should i get punished for 30 days because you decided to send by money order...?c'mon man,you know the game better than that..."

 

[needsize]

money order or cash, it shouldnt have been left lying around. Once he received it it was his responsibility. If I send my source cash and he loses it, I aint sending more...

 

[big N]

fuck that its not ur fault the kid got a hold of it ,its not like u gave it the little kidd n,big deal its 30 days not 30 years .i would tell him that hes just gonna have to wait .

 

[natty]

if i trusted the source well i would send him a small amount to give him something because people make mistakes and noone is perfect but i certainly wouldnt give him all of it

 

[BiggieSwolls]

In this case, the customer has no issue with trust. Its the fact that he doesnt feel like he should be the one to wait 30 days for the money. The customer was also going to send the money but then changed his mind when he read some of the shit the source was saying. Like "if you've been around the boards for awhile and i know you have ;-) ,then please do the right thing and give me what you owe, should i get punished for 30 days because you decided to send by money order...?c'mon man,you know the game better than that..."

I mean the bottom line is that the customer in this case, didnt even have to take the time out of his day to contact the post office and see what can be done about the situation. But he did anyways. Then he has to read emails about how this is his fault because he sent a money order.

Oh well, some people do business in very interesting ways.

 

[Mr. dB]

- direct quote from the source in last email to customer in which they are haggling about whether or not the customer should send more money: "if you've been around the boards for awhile and i know you have ;-) ,then please do the right thing and give me what you owe, should i get punished for 30 days because you decided to send by money order...?c'mon man,you know the game better than that..."

Customer's response: Why should I be punished because your kid flushed the MO?

 

[Tazmaniac]

The source should have to wait. He had it in his hands...it was under his control, therefore responsibility transferred to him.

Tough Shit for him...

 

[Ken]

Money Order= CASH.. His kid basically flushed 600 Ben Franklins down the toilet. I would make him wait the 30+ days to get him another.

 

[WI]

The funds were sent, it's not the customers fault that the handling of the funds were so careless! I definitely would not send more money!!!

I agree with BD, In my opinion I would have been more cautious with a MO than with cash, if that makes any sense.

 

[Ifrit]

Tell the source he should consider it a loss for him because it was his fault. If he would like to place blame on you then reaffirm your presence on the boards and if he does business through the boards then it is best to stay on your good side. To me, there are so many sources that none of us should have to pay for any of their problems. Does Wal-Mart make us pay them if they dropped something after we bought it. I beleive we need (on all boards) to let sources know that there need to be (guidelines) as Pirates of the caribean would put it. Not that we need a sticky that tells sources how to do business, but telling them we all expect a certain amount of professionalism and when this and this happens it gets such and such reactions. Steroid use has become so wide spread that there will be better and better times replies to e-mails etc. I for one have not been on boards and I don't beleive I can be so forward to put up guidelines but I think it would be a good idea. Let's say someone orders from #$@%^ and they have not received there order and their source is telling them to resend money because they lost it (example). Wouldn't it be nice to read a sticky that ALL mods agree on the terms on what should happen and who should be at fault. Sure nothing would go perfect but sources will read the sticky and realize what we have come to expect in the growing "Professionalism" of this business. Hope I made sense.

 

[Ifrit]

Oh and don't reply saying this isn't Wal-mart. No shit. Thanks.

 

[SkedMedz]

Who in the H-E-L-L flushes a MO down the toilet?? I mean, most kids would at least scribble on the fucking thing before they think of that in my opinion. He is being unreasonable. It got there. It's on him. Tell him to keep his rugrats in check instead of breaking your balls.

 

[grafixLSUalum]

my opinion is the source was nice enough to front the products, and it is unfortunate that the money order got flushed, but he should wait the 30 days.

 

[Ifrit]

Yup