From what I have read, it appears seller agreed to sell said rifle of a certain condition. I agree that whether its a Ruger, and whether its a No. 1, and whether its a .243, are all objective and quite easily agreed upon. All I was trying to point out is that it is possible that there was a misundertanding about the subjective condition of the rifle. I don't see it as the buyer wanting to go back and adjust the terms. Rather, I see it as the buyer complaining about whether the original terms were met.
1. Nobody here knows exactly what happened except the buyer and the seller. 2. What a buyer or a seller did on any previous transaction does not mean they did it on this transaction. 3. We have not heard the other side of the story. 4. I AM NOT SAYING THE POSTER IS LYING. I am saying that based on my experiences in working with people there is a huge disparity in what people say and what they mean, and what they want and what they expect. 5. Therefore, my main point was that it might be a little early for many on here to jump on either the buyer or the seller until the entire thing plays out and everybody is heard from. 6. Nevertheless, there will always be those who will rely on ad hominum argument because they have nothing else to say but they want to be heard.
I'm sorry, but are you having difficulty understanding what you've "read?" I don't see anywhere -- ANYWHERE AT ALL -- that there were terms for an inspection period. I do not see that there were terms for a return or redress of any discrepancies if the buyer didn't agree with the condition. Savvy?
The basic terms of the sale were met. The buyer now wants to add additional terms. GAME OVER.
I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Originally Posted by safariman
I do tend to fit in well wherever I go in person.
Originally Posted by Fireball2
The campfire is the most outside exposure I get. No TV, no newspaper.
