Mars wrote: One question: why no negative feedback to wowart on this?

....Regardless of who paid first, the seller should be honouring the listing that ended first....


The seller should have sold the items to the first person who bought them and it seems like they didn't.......  

Yup.
Yup.
and
Yup.

HOWEVER:

Mars wrote:I can understand that spock is upset with Pip but the blame here really lies with the seller.  

I cannot understand this one myself, not totally anyway.
It looks like Pip took advantage of that situation yes, but the fact remains....
To use a phrase Badmike created for us....

The seller is an asshat!  PERIOD!

(I think it was Badmike anyway....)  


BTW: WOOOT!

Center_Stage wrote:It might be winter time, but Key Lime is still my favorite.

Key lime is a favourite here too and generally a winter treat since we go through a half dozen pies when we go to Florida for the week in January.

Zenfinite wrote:
Alright, I admit I got a little British there on you guys

We'll let it slide...this time.

ashmire13 wrote:
I'll take salted over toffee if you have some, thanks!  

Here you go.



Does anyone have any other requests while Pipswich continues digging his own grave?

Zenfinite wrote:
"I got the art, so, sod off, wanker."

Zenfinite

An iconic British phrase!  

bombadil with a Clint Eastwood look in his eye wrote:We'll let it slide...this time.  

I do like your dry wit though, that does seem so British at times...  

Pipswich wrote: The evidence is in the ownership.  And, in his own Ebay correspondence listed which showed I had already paid when he had not.

Really? As discussed before, Ebay isn't in the business of being arbiters. Auctions are contracts, as you mentioned. You seem to talk as if you have a degree in contract law. Explain this:



close-up for clarity


What was your story again? Something about "immediate payment" and auctions left open that you bid on...Funny how it's doesn't match any facts. You need to go back to your earlier posts and edit them before someone gets the wrong idea about you here.

The ones you bid on even had different auction numbers.

Pipswich wrote: And, in the fact that he worked out a side deal with Jane for additional works as a remedy.

Really, you must stop confusing your actions with mine. The side deal was something YOU both were working on. I realized something was fishy between the two of you, so I refused any side deal. Case in point:

See the Lycanthropy purchase in the above image? It was never relisted, yet you claimed ownership over it. How does that work exactly? It was never yours to begin with. Then you and she came up with a plan to use that painting as leverage, and adding in one other painting as a side deal.

Pipswich wrote: I think I yielded one (or two) the other party wanted very badly

Get it? Pipswich "yielded" a sold painting (already sold to me) that was not in dispute -- how thoughtful -- along with "yielding" an additional painting he wasn't interested in (see below) and that I didn't want as part of any shady deal. I flatly refused because I immediately sensed dishonesty and only stuck to the original purchases from Ebay.

I requested a total for the adjusted shipping charges on the paintings from the seller as detailed before, and I asked her to let me know when other BIN auctions of the remaining pieces were going to be listed. She had said that after the auctions were over on that coming Sunday this sale would be over for all these paintings.





Furthermore, I didn't ask to, and wasn't about to engage in anything "apart from Ebay", especially when you start getting messages like "you better act within the next 20 minutes".





And I called your guys' bluff on this, too. Funny how you "wanted" it, but it wasn't part of the shady deal on the items you wound up with.

Pipswich wrote: Even to me it looks like they shouldn't have been listed again unless there was a glitch in Ebay's immediate payment required system.

Nope, no glitch. Ebay couldn't even provide me evidence of other "glitches" that night. Funny how Lycanthropy wasn't glitched. Nor the others you bought like "Claw Shadow", "Rope Trick", "The Grell", etc. that you bought as BestOffer.

Pipswich wrote: However, I completed contract terms first and also spent two days negotiating the purchase anyway.

Oops, you slipped there. Why would you need to do any negotiations on legitimate auctions? You obviously saw the duplicate auctions on the completed auctions list. Like I said, your negotiations were all about your deal with her to work out the leverage.

Pipswich wrote: All the while aware that another angry party was involved but expecting that access to the previously unavailable works was providing an adequate remedy for any issues.

Thanks for this other slip-up. You realized you bought the erroneous auctions, but you were grasping at ways to get around it. You were lucky that you found a buddy to help you through it.

Pipswich wrote: Note that misterspock's payment for the negotiated items I believe he bought (since she didn't just turn around and sell them to me) indicates legal completion of the transaction and agreement to its terms.  If he were not happy at the time, he should not have completed/settled a transaction with Jane and pursued other options then.

What negotiated items are you referring to? I only purchased art from her off of Ebay transactions. Remember, you're the one involved in the "negotiations" and shady side dealings.

Pipswich wrote: Once he negotiated an alternate purchase and completed the transaction the matter of who bought what legally ended.

Again you're fabricating stuff out of thin air. There was no alternate purchase. That was the plan you envisioned I would do.

Mars wrote: One question: why no negative feedback to wowart on this?

When I filed the dispute with Ebay, she was nervous about my neg'ing her. She led me on that both he and I would not get either of the two paintings in dispute at that time. She'd decide when to list them in the future in straight auction style. She eventually relisted a couple items, but never those two. She waited long enough that I could no longer file the negative feedback. Pip had already "magically" ended up with the paintings in his hands.

Mars wrote: I can understand that spock is upset with Pip but the blame here really lies with the seller.  The seller should have sold the items to the first person who bought them and it seems like they didn't.  The buyers can complain to Ebay or ask for guidance but I think we all know that Ebay decisions are determined by a room of monkeys on keyboards.

Yes, I absolutely blame the seller. I was being tag-teamed, though. He used the Lycanthropy painting, as you can see above, which there was no dispute about, as leverage so that he could get the other two. Pipswich came up with this idea. This was my major point of this thread -- his shadiness (his motivation). And she was happy to oblige him in order to move additional pieces. (that was her motivation)

I had bought two other paintings from her previously over the past couple months. And at no time did others who were buying her art at the same time make plays for the auctions that I won. And at no time did she offer my auctions to others who won other paintings at that time.

JohnGaunt wrote: But please be willing to let this rest after a while.  Neither of you will give much ground in this argument, so the back-and-forth only proves who is more stubborn.

deimos3428 wrote: As fun as it is to watch it go on and on like this, it needs to come to an end.  (Eventually.  Take your time, it's good entertainment.)  But I think the various parties involved need to stop and think about what they hope to accomplish by extending the argument.

I agree with you guys, this won't be protracted. I just want to demonstrate evidence of the suspicions many have had, and I think you can see how it ties into his mindset when he posts about shady/criminal people on the internet, because that's what he traffics in.

mbassoc2003 wrote:you seem to have no problem abandoning your moral and ethical highground when you personally can profit from such corruption.

I couldn't have said it better about Pip.

deimos3428 wrote: Are you looking for an apology? An admission of guilt?  Just want to take someone down a peg?  Hoping a warm fuzzy feeling will wash over us all?  Trying to run someone off the site?  Just like arguing?  Trying to save face?  Just using the argument thread to shill Lemurchat limited edition t-shirts?  What?

I'll guess I'll go with Category #3 -- take someone down a peg.

Again, I just want to shine a light on his behavior.

faro wrote:
This.

If seller lists twice by accident and buyer A purchases first, but buyer B pays first, it's the seller's responsibility to resolve any contract issues arising, with eBay's assistance if required. An eBay contract does not, however, directly equate to transfer of legal ownership/title to goods, per http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html .
If the seller then tells buyer B the circumstances and buyer B offers to pay for the other item buyer A has won if they do not wish that any more, believing that having paid first means that they now have legal title to goods on the other two items, it is again the seller's responsibility to resolve that matter. The obvious answer should be a firm "no".

Buyer B exacerbating the matter by overstepping is secondary to the seller's performance issues and certainly less "shady" (given the above scenario) than other observed behaviors where, for example, there is only a single listing and a third party armtwists the seller to cancel and refund payment on a completed contract.

02c/ymmv, anyhow...

This has to be the most clear statement I have ever read you post.

There remains nothing there that is inconsistent with my first post.

I bought and paid first when immediate payment was required.  I inquired about other available items.  I bought additional items openly.  I didn't try to hide anything.  There is nothing underhanded or hidden about any of the transactions.  

I did offer to buy Lycanthropy, if the other party (I now know you) backed out.  I also wanted to buy Song of Roland, if available.  That's probably what I was thinking I "yielded" for some reason.  There were at least a couple of things that we both wanted that I did not get.  

My position then and now is simple.  I believed I was the first person to buy and meet the contract terms advertised.  And, I was informed that (you) were upset.  But, I did think that the negotiations resulted in all parties finding reasonable resolution.  And, I had no way of knowing otherwise until you posted this thread.  I can not read your mind or know what you were thinking.  And the end of the purchase, I thought that each party walked away happy with there stack.  How would I know otherwise?  For that matter, how would the vendor, when there was no negative feedback!

I am sorry that you are disappointed, but I do hope you are enjoying Lycanthropy and Song of Roland and whatever else you bought.  They are fine pieces.  If you are not happy with them shoot me a message anytime.  And, I hope that you got a nice discount on the stack for all the aggravation.  It sounds like you deserved one.

Pipswich wrote:Misterspock then began lying about the circumstances to his friends which is what began the tirades against me on this site.  I weathered them as gracefully as possible, but some of you should be ashamed of yourselves.  I openly posted references to this transaction and suggested the angry party contact me and I have spoken several times on the phone to individuals who had heard only his side of the story.  I encouraged them to have him contact me directly, as well.

Lie.

Pipswich wrote:Until today, I did not know who this individual was.  He hid behind a cloak of anonymity making false accusations.

He may have remained anonymous, but the accusations as has been proven have not been false. Another lie.

Pipswich wrote:There is a reason for that hiding.  I have been libeled, slandered and defamed by him in hiding.  He did not bring this matter into the open because it was in his own best interest to keep it in hiding and exercise his anger where he could lie about the context of the sales.

Lie.

Pipswich wrote:Most of you know at least a couple of things about me.  When someone lists something I like with immediate payment required or otherwise, I buy and pay on the spot.  I then expect the seller to ship the item.

We know a lot more about you than this.

There is also a multitude of other lies that you posted, but I think the point has not been made. Only now the avalanche of concrete evidence has been posted has your toned changed.  It's not that surprising since you're again trying to save your own ass again.

Thanks for playing.