Glock Transfer Rejected

Arietta said:
The sellers who inflated prices in response to increased demand took the risk of being stuck with the gun if it didn't sell or, in this case, the transfer was rejected. People who wanted handguns before the freeze was implemented had months to buy them at more moderate prices. The increased prices for handguns is hardly comparable to over charging for bottled water in a declared emergency.
Click to expand...

It's a scum bag thing to do.
 
Just return the funds, the transaction didn't go through, simple like that. you didn't lose your gun, and the intended higher profits you wanted, didn't happen due some external factors.
 
I understand the OP's position... these are not normal circumstances... if there were no ban, he would absolutely refund 100% and then resell... BUT now, he can't resell, and he is eating a monetary loss because of the buyers BS... rotten scenario... but the upside is that Trudeau forcing you to keep your pistol is not the end of the world... buy lots of ammo and burn some powder.
 
Man I know i'm late to the party on this one, but here's my thoughts. The seller lost the opportunity to sell the firearm, because he committed it to the buyer. The buyer got himself in trouble with the law, which is his own fault. I don't think the seller should lose out on his sale because the buyer screwed up. I think the best thing to do in this scenario is offer to return a portion of the funds. Tell the buyer you're willing to give him 80% of the purchase price back, and keep 20% as a "restocking fee" because of the time, hassle, and inability to sell the merchandise to anyone else. Same thing that any big box retailer would do with a high value item. If the seller doesn't like that he can take you to small claims court and you can let them decide.
 
BRBMD said:
Man I know i'm late to the party on this one, but here's my thoughts. The seller lost the opportunity to sell the firearm, because he committed it to the buyer. The buyer got himself in trouble with the law, which is his own fault. I don't think the seller should lose out on his sale because the buyer screwed up. I think the best thing to do in this scenario is offer to return a portion of the funds. Tell the buyer you're willing to give him 80% of the purchase price back, and keep 20% as a "restocking fee" because of the time, hassle, and inability to sell the merchandise to anyone else. Same thing that any big box retailer would do with a high value item. If the seller doesn't like that he can take you to small claims court and you can let them decide.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you on this. It wasn’t the OP”s doing that got this transaction canceled and as a result he lost his chance to sell this firearm. It was the buyers actions that caused the cancellation so yep, give him back 80% and call it a day.
 
shiftybullet said:
I've got a fun story... Sold a G17 to a guy in June during the chaos of the looming "bans", made a nice profit and he got his unobtanium Glock. Win Win.

We are still waiting on the transfer to be approved.

Fast forward to a couple days ago, guy contacts me asking for his money back because he got into some legal trouble. In his own words, "I was dealing with another person before and we did not follow the relevant procedures", "seven pistols were confiscated by police". I don't know exactly what he did, but it's obviously not good.

I was told by an officer that the transfer I initiated was rejected on Nov 25, I should receive the official letter soon.

When I sold the pistol it was with the understanding that if the Government pulled some BS and wouldn't allow the transfer, I would refund the entire purchase, no ones fault, fair is fair. But in this situation I'm pretty torn, I'm now stuck with this pistol and cannot sell it to anyone else because the buyer screwed up.

My initial thought is why should I lose out on my profit and time invested because he screwed up? I also sold him some accessories that he now doesn't want because he cant use them. I want to give him back half the purchase price, and tell him to make better decisions in the future.

Looking for some advice, what is fair?

EDIT: Consensus is don't be a scumbag, give him back his money. :cheers:

EDIT2: I am sorry for my impure thought on the matter. I will pray to Jesus for my wicked soul.

LAST EDIT: I cant spend all night replying to everyone. Buyer is getting 100% back, i'm just out on this deal. It happens, I'll survive haha!. Thanks for all the replies, it was fun.
Click to expand...



Laugh2, pure gold!!
 
^^^^^ 30% restocking fee...haha

I think op did the right thing. But given the circumstances either decision could be considered the right thing to do.
 
I also think the OP did the right thing. However, I doubt a lawyer would. When the buyer ran afoul of the law due to choices he made, he (the buyer) can't claim that he should be refunded due to a force majeure as the catalyst that breaks the contract? An act of god is something beyond one's control. One can't claim this has occurred, if that very person is the architect of the folly!

Technically, the OP could have taken the position that he is keeping the money and transferring the gun. If the buyer wants to appeal the transfer rejection then anything the seller can do to assist will occur. Notwithstanding the buyer knows personal information about him.

The other side of the argument is that as it is the government who won't permit the transfer, the deal (contract) is void due to a force majeure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom