Major Score At Work!!

Until anyone who's critical of the principle(s) involved applies the principle(s) involved to their own practices, how can they be critical?

e.g., when you see a coin mis-listed, misdiagnosed, mis-graded, misidentified and you know it's worth 100x more than the selling price, do you offer the seller 25, 50, 95x more than he/she is asking for it?

Where/what is the critical mass demarcation between buyer/seller beware and taking advantage of others?

Principles...consistent application counts towards integrity...politics of that integrity, notwithstanding.

All those coins look like they are in terrible condition...I think you got ripped off not her. Just my opinion of course.

I also feel that as long as both parties were happy then that's all that matters. Instead of the purchaser doing the research to find the value, I think it is more bimportant for the seller to do the research. Second of all, never say what you want to get first, let the buyer make their offer.

Nice steal Chichikov!

Agreed CH, don't EVER let the name of the forum fool you, I've just recently learned this, and ONLY speaking for myself in this situation, I would've told her what they were worth, doing that would've given me a much better feeling than making $20-$30 off someone who really didn't know the value of something in a deal, my character and reputation is worth much more than $20-$30

I haven't read a post more ridiculous than this in a long time. You disagree with one post, and the entire forum is embarrassing. How old are you? 9?

She asked for $20, he gave her $25. Get over it, it doesn't make him a bad person.

I am a noob here and I admit I have not read previous threads on this subject. But it seems to me that the discussion is confusing two different principles. Though they look similar at first blush they are actually quite different: Business, including the duties and obligations that are required and moral or personal ethics.

When hired buy a company in a position of trust, your conduct is usually spelled out in an employee contract. You are required to act in the manner proscribed by the company's policies. If you are a buyer, for instance, you may be charged with acquiring goods and services at the lowest possible price from qualified sellers. You conform to the company's rules concerning pre-qualifying sellers, soliciting bids, and most often; all things being equal you are required to accept the lowest price. Both buyer and seller are expected to do "due diligence" and make and receive qualified, responsible bids. If you take anything other than the lowest qualified bid you may lose your job or worse, be legally prosecuted. By being in a position of trust you are legally bound by a principle called "fiduciary duty". In other words, you may take no action that is not in the best financial interest of the company.

In the case of a coin dealer or pawn shop owner putting a sign in his window stating "We Buy Coins", there arises a qualifying principle: In business one may not act in such a way as to defraud an unsuspecting seller, such as telling the person that his coins are "junk" or just "pocket change". When he sets himself up as an expert he assumes liability for his actions, in other words, "...he knew or should have known" that the coins have a value far exceeding that offered and he took aggressive and specific actions to deceive the seller. This principle protects the innocent. It is the same principle applied to unscrupulous contractors who defraud old women by doing shoddy work and overcharging them: They may be sued and/or prosecuted.

In almost every case involving a business transaction ethics (by that I mean moral ethics) plays no part in the matter. Assuming legality, the only option an employee has if he objects to his employer's policy is to resign.

Now comes the hard part. Assuming that Fatboy is not in business and only casually collects, buys and sells coins, how he conducts himself is determined by his own moral code and I gather from his posts that he saw no harm in the deal, in fact quite the contrary, he was elated by it. Many here obviously agree with him. Some codes are influenced by religion, some by culture; some may even be influenced by this thread. Assuming (once again) that he didn't intentionally set out to defraud this person, the deal is complete. End of conversation.

Fatboy is neither obligated nor able to read the mind or intentions of the seller. Perhaps she needed the money to pay a past due bill when she left work, perhaps she was hungry and wanted to buy lunch, maybe she was lazy and didn't want to go to a dealer or she was a dope addict and needed a fix. It is not his responsibility and indeed none of his business why she was willing to part with her property for the price paid. He paid a price that satisfied the seller and he is good with that. If there are any ramifications he must deal with it. Heck she might bring another batch tomorrow.

In my humble opinion, neither ethics nor morality comes into a deal like this: After all, it's only money. ;)

Maxie