BiggieSwolls
Steelers = SuperBowl
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.
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.
Last edited: