Should I Sell My 2 Glock 9mm Happy Sticks Or Keep Them .What Do You Say NES Brain Trust.

[allen-1]

You were negotiating a price. This isn't going into a retail store.

I erred earlier when I brought up enforcing the law. This would just be a civil matter, of course, but definitely actionable.

Good Luck

Moneyball (2011) clip with quote Good Luck Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.

memes.getyarn.io

 

[allen-1]

So, going back to the OP.

Sell them.

And buy some of the 24 round OEM mags.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

Selling at a good markup is only unethical if you deceive the buyer into thinking that's market rate. Like if I were to tell someone now that my $1/per 9mm is what everyone sells it for, so you might as well buy from me. But if the selling price is in fact market rate (which it probably was given the backdrop of this story), then there are no ethics issues. That's market demand pricing. It's unfortunate when it happens, but it isn't unethical. And you don't have to buy either.

But that aside, what was the expectation? Sell at cost? Sell at an insignificant mark up? What would be the point for the seller?

 

[Miguelito]

Good Luck

Moneyball (2011) clip with quote Good Luck Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.

memes.getyarn.io

I'm just saying that this is actionable. I got directly defrauded two years ago in an online transaction for $700. I sued him on principle and I won. Now I will never see a dime of that money and in fact cost myself more.

 

[Miguelito]

Selling at a good markup is only unethical if you deceive the buyer into thinking that's market rate. Like if I were to tell someone now that my $1/per 9mm is what everyone sells it for, so you might as well buy from me. But if the selling price is in fact market rate (which it probably was given the backdrop of this story), then there are no ethics issues. That's market demand pricing. It's unfortunate when it happens, but it isn't unethical. And you don't have to buy either.

But that aside, what was the expectation? Sell at cost? Sell at an insignificant mark up? What would be the point for the seller?

In my opinion, based on a quick Google search, the OP's conduct in this transaction WAS NOT unethical, but Was immoral, and WAS an actionable civil fraud.

 

[Miguelito]

No its f***ing not. The judge would f***ing laugh at you.

That's not true. This is civil, not criminal. Different rules apply.

 

[drgrant]

I'm just saying that this is actionable. I got directly defrauded two years ago in an online transaction for $700. I sued him on principle and I won. Now I will never see a dime of that money and in fact cost myself more.

Lol so you sued someone based on commie BS, or was it actual fraud? Fraud involves things like "intentional deception or misrepresentation" etc.

Hint: the two things are very different. "Caveat Emptor butthurt" is not something you can sue over.

 

[Miguelito]

No, it doesn't, and this assertion is f***ing laughable. The seller has no obligation to f***ing tell him anything. ZERO.

By that logic every gun or other retail shop is committing fraud because they won't tell you what they paid for something. And Deli Ticket Emporium is very fraudy because they sell lots of
used guns for like 300+ over cost, based soley on things like information gap arbitrage.

There's no legal or moral obligation to make a buyer (or seller for that matter) informed or not dumb. It is not fraud to shut your mouth.

Facts and circumstances matter.

 

[drgrant]

In my opinion, based on a quick Google search, the OP's conduct in this transaction WAS NOT unethical, but Was immoral, and WAS an actionable civil fraud.

How the can you sue someone for paying the exact price of the item or items that YOU ESTABLISHED?

The buyer is under no obligation to tell you your price is stupid and that you should demand more, etc.

Please enlighten the class. We're all ears about this gnomish mysticism of the american legal system.

You seemed to have missed the part where the seller set the price. (and obtained it) This is pretty crucial.

 

[Miguelito]

Lol so you sued someone based on commie BS, or was it actual fraud? Fraud involves things like "intentional deception or misrepresentation" etc.

Hint: the two things are very different. "Caveat Emptor butthurt" is not something you can sue over.

I bought some stuff on the internet and the seller didn't send them and wouldn't refund my money.

 

[drgrant]

I bought some stuff on the internet and the seller didn't send them and wouldn't refund my money.

Dude thats ACTUAL f***ING THEFT. Big difference.

 

[AHM]

Not sure if serious, it's called arbitrage.

Wrecker
Kulak.
Capitalist tool.

 

[Sparky123]

So I've got these two, pre ban, 33 round, square notch, 9mm, magazines. I have two,Glock 19's, but these happy sticks look really stupid in the 19's and I doubt I'd ever use the happy sticks in the two Glocks. I have pre ban magazines for both Glock 19's as well. As a result, the happy sticks just take up safe space. Conversely, the happy sticks don't need to be fed and watered three times a day either and the prices on these things keep increasing to stupid levels. So what say you NES Braintrust? Keep the happy sticks or dump them. Got my box of pop corn ready, so let'r rip.

Sell them? Are you serious? You should buy two more.

 

[413dan]

 

[AHM]

 

[alan226]

The free market is an amazing thing. Just look at the classified ads. If an item has been bumped 8 times and has been there for 4 months, it's probably priced too high.

If you advertise something and are accurate with the description and someone buys it, there is no way to be "unethical" or "immoral"...

 

[Miguelito]

The

How the can you sue someone for paying the exact price of the item or items that YOU ESTABLISHED?

The buyer is under no obligation to tell you your price is stupid and that you should demand more, etc.

Please enlighten the class. We're all ears about this gnomish mysticism of the american legal system.

You seemed to have missed the part where the seller set the price. (and obtained it) This is pretty crucial.

To everyone who is hammering me on this thread, one of whom I have blocked (who others have previously told me to ignore). The OP's actions were definitely immoral by any standard. Is that what you would want someone to do to you? From a civil tort perspective, facts and circumstances are always paramount. It doesn't matter the relatively small amount; the principles are the same. You just walked out of a store where you know the seller can receive four times what you paid him, or even five times if he sells ot IN the parking lot himself (I am going off memory). That fact alone makes this actionable, and, in my opinion, an easily winnable case in court. But that part is just a thought exercise. The sticking point for me is the amorality of the OP and everyone else defending him and attacking me.

 

[413dan]

no one forced either party to buy or sell. In either of the transactions. Yet all parties walked away happy. ???

Wtf do you not get here? No gun held on them demanding payment forcing them Or anything of the like. Free market enterprise. Clearly it was not a price you would’ve paid, and that is ok! That’s how it’s supposed to work. A good price is one both parties are happy with...

 

[M60]

You were negotiating a price. This isn't going into a retail store.

What part of i asked his price, agreed to it and paid it didn't you hear and understand? Point out to me where in this statement I negotiated. I didn't try to pay more. I didn't try to pay less. That would be negotiating. I didn't do that.

 

[413dan]

What part of i asked his price, agreed to it and paid it didn't you hear and understand? Point out to me where in this statement I negotiated. I didn't try to pay more. I didn't try to pay less. That would be negotiating. I didn't do that.

Even if you had negotiated what’s wrong with that? Dickering is fun!


to add substance to this thread and reply to the OP I say sell the happy sticks. Someone else will be happier with them. You’ll be happpier with the money or item received in trade. And then be content with the newly acquired item or buy something with aforementioned cash. Crazy how that works, isn’t it?lmao

 

[M60]

I bought some stuff on the internet and the seller didn't send them and wouldn't refund my money.

And you're using this as equal to my purchase at asking price? I delivered payment and the seller delivered the merchandise. Are you drinking today!

 

[Miguelito]

What part of i asked his price, agreed to it and paid it didn't you hear and understand? Point out to me where in this statement I negotiated. I didn't try to pay more. I didn't try to pay less. That would be negotiating. I didn't do that.

And you're this as equal my purchase at asking g price? I delivered payment and the seller delivered the merchandise. Are you drinking today!

I have explained that your actions were immoral. Would you want someone to do that to a relative of yours? Your mom, your dad? Taking advantage of them, which you did. Did you go to Church? Do you have kids? What are you teaching them?
I have also explained how civil law works and how what you did would be actionable in a court of law in a significant amount of states, probably most. What have I just written that is incorrect?

 

[drgrant]

The

To everyone who is hammering me on this thread, one of whom I have blocked (who others have previously told me to ignore). The OP's actions were definitely immoral by any standard. Is that what you would want someone to do to you?

I don't live in fairy tale land so it has nothing to do with "wanting" it has to do with living in reality.

If I am selling the item, and I set a price, get the money I ask for, and deliver the item(s), and then the buyer turns around and flips it for double or even 10x what I paid for it, why should I
care? Oh wait, I don't, because I dont act like a butthurt loser if a buyer of the stuff I'm selling uses a knowledge, or information gap or some other advantage (like different
markets) to resell the product. Absent some special contract signed between me and the buyer, I have ZERO right to complain about whatever he does with that item.

From a civil tort perspective, facts and circumstances are always paramount. It doesn't matter the relatively small amount; the principles are the same. You just walked out of a store where you know the seller can receive four times what you paid him, or even five times if he sells ot IN the parking lot himself (I am going off memory). That fact alone makes this actionable

Lol this is pure bullshit and not represented in law.

, and, in my opinion, an easily winnable case in court. But that part is just a thought exercise. The sticking point for me is the amorality of the OP and everyone else defending him and attacking me.

Where in the law is there an obligation to inform a seller of anything? The only obligation the seller has by default is to deliver the goods at the agreed upon
price/terms. If no other terms are set, it is what it is.

SHOW US THE CASE LAW.

Educate us, instead of bloviating based on emotions. You're trying to cast your feelings into law and thats not how the world works, beatrice.

 

[M60]

Facts and circumstances matter.

Yes and by your admission you got neither the merchandise or a refund. How does that apply to this transaction in the windmills of your mind? In this transaction the seller got paid his full asking price and the buyer got the merchandise. I can't wait for your response to this question.

 

[M60]

I have explained that your actions were immoral. Would you want someone to do that to a relative of yours? Your mom, your dad? Taking advantage of them, which you did. Did you go to Church? Do you have kids? What are you teaching them?
I have also explained how civil law works and how what you did would be actionable in a court of law in a significant amount of states, probably most. What have I just written that is incorrect?

Seems to me that you are grasping at such ridiculous straws that your suit against this purchase would/could be deemed frivolous and counter sued for treble damages. Hows that taste to you?

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

In my opinion, based on a quick Google search, the OP's conduct in this transaction WAS NOT unethical, but Was immoral, and WAS an actionable civil fraud.

Wait...this is now a discussion about morality?

 

[G4Y4HK]

This is NES. Someone's selling postban glock 17 mags for $155 each. that means prebans are worth about $600 a piece. go for it! remember, they are "rArE" in MA

 

[M60]

I have explained that your actions were immoral. Would you want someone to do that to a relative of yours? Your mom, your dad? Taking advantage of them, which you did. Did you go to Church? Do you have kids? What are you teaching them?
I have also explained how civil law works and how what you did would be actionable in a court of law in a significant amount of states, probably most. What have I just written that is incorrect?

Honestly, your opinion is worth exactly what you've charged me for it. Not a penny more.

 

[Tallahassee]

This is NES. Someone's selling postban glock 17 mags for $155 each. that means prebans are worth about $600 a piece. go for it! remember, they are "rArE" in MA

I didn't know there was a demand for post ban mags.

 

[Miguelito]

Seems to me that you are grasping at such ridiculous straws that your suit against this purchase would/could be deemed frivolous and counter sued for treble damages. Hows that taste to you?

You are serious, that you want to live in a world where people take advantage of others because they can and the opportunity presents itself? That you would be okay with someone taking advantage of your sister or your mom or your dad? I really don't need to say anything more. You have revealed your true self.