Online retailer NOT honoring BCDP Jumbo case purchases

[cgilmo]

Paying is irrelevant. Offer and acceptance. Offer to sell; acceptance to pay for the item. A contract is not formed when the buyer pays; just like on eBay, a contract is not formed when the buyer pays. A contract is formed when they press the BIN button or win the auction.

These sells aren't done on ebay.

Most of them are done via email and there is wording about it being subject to allocation. Big box retailers aren't dumb.

 

[cgilmo]

I'll restate my original post. There's a whole lot of misinformation in this thread, and I'll present you with some facts.

Topps made it very clear to direct accounts several months ago that not everyone was going to get jumbos. Josh was well aware of this as was I. I've been a direct account for decades with lots of card companies, and I learned a long time ago that you never order product a just to get product b. the only winner in that game is the manufacturer.

So i got a fairly large allocation of bdp hobby and the writing was clearly on the wall that if I made a big order i'd get so
me jumbos. So I chose to make a small order, and not play Topps' game. A good move in retrospect.

And Guess what? I was allocated jumbos. The 6:1 ratio is not coming from Topps, that I promise you. It's coming from the deAlers and/or distributors that guys like Josh buy off in addition to Topps.

This bdp thing is new. There will be no retail version. There will be limited jumbos. This was clear to all dealers before the hobby order window closed. Shame on dealers that assumed this product was going to be handled the same way as Bowman regular.

Topps generally gives jumbos out on a 1:1 basis, not 2:1 or any other ratio. I've never been allocated jumbos in any other ratio for any other Topps product. Those talking about any other ratio that they "usually" get are pawns of thier sources, because those guys get a case of jumbos for every hobby case they order.

I dont care how great a human being Josh is. He made a bad bisiness decision by assuming jumbos would be more accessable. Imho now he's making a far worse decision by holding his customers responsible for his goof, plain and simple. The only right way for Josh to handle this, and an option he has clearly decided against to avoid taking a hit, is to man-up, go out on the market & buy jumbos to fulfill his self-imposed obligations. It's cut & dry and what any businessperson with integrity would do.

Blowout is doing the right thing by fulfilling thier contracts. They saw the writing on the wall and presd thier cases at a higher level than Josh did. They're taking thier hit like they should, but it won't hurt as much because they knew this product wouldbe different. Topps didn't make that hardto figure out. Another mistake by Josh. He either wasn't paying attention, or he just chose to ignore the information he had.

We all take our hits in this industry. Josh should take his. The people that accepted the contract he offered should not be held accountable for his bad business decision. Shame on you Josh.

You do realize that he can't fill orders with product he does not have right?

 

[cgilmo]

I want to be clear on one thing. Josh did not cancel any actual orders, people put in REQUESTS for the product that are all subject to allocation.

And allstars, I have been on both sides of the coin as well.

This situation isn't as bad as you make it sound.

 

[brentandbecca]

I'll restate my original post. There's a whole lot of misinformation in this thread, and I'll present you with some facts.

Topps made it very clear to direct accounts several months ago that not everyone was going to get jumbos. Josh was well aware of this as was I. I've been a direct account for decades with lots of card companies, and I learned a long time ago that you never order product a just to get product b. the only winner in that game is the manufacturer.

So i got a fairly large allocation of bdp hobby and the writing was clearly on the wall that if I made a big order i'd get so
me jumbos. So I chose to make a small order, and not play Topps' game. A good move in retrospect.

And Guess what? I was allocated jumbos. The 6:1 ratio is not coming from Topps, that I promise you. It's coming from the deAlers and/or distributors that guys like Josh buy off in addition to Topps.

This bdp thing is new. There will be no retail version. There will be limited jumbos. This was clear to all dealers before the hobby order window closed. Shame on dealers that assumed this product was going to be handled the same way as Bowman regular.

Topps generally gives jumbos out on a 1:1 basis, not 2:1 or any other ratio. I've never been allocated jumbos in any other ratio for any other Topps product. Those talking about any other ratio that they "usually" get are pawns of thier sources, because those guys get a case of jumbos for every hobby case they order.

I dont care how great a human being Josh is. He made a bad bisiness decision by assuming jumbos would be more accessable. Imho now he's making a far worse decision by holding his customers responsible for his goof, plain and simple. The only right way for Josh to handle this, and an option he has clearly decided against to avoid taking a hit, is to man-up, go out on the market & buy jumbos to fulfill his self-imposed obligations. It's cut & dry and what any businessperson with integrity would do.

Blowout is doing the right thing by fulfilling thier contracts. They saw the writing on the wall and presd thier cases at a higher level than Josh did. They're taking thier hit like they should, but it won't hurt as much because they knew this product wouldbe different. Topps didn't make that hardto figure out. Another mistake by Josh. He either wasn't paying attention, or he just chose to ignore the information he had.

We all take our hits in this industry. Josh should take his. The people that accepted the contract he offered should not be held accountable for his bad business decision. Shame on you Josh.

You do present a lot of correct info, and one reason Josh never expected the 6:1 ratio. If it had been 2:1 or even 3:1 he would be ok, he ordered enough, but not 6:1.
Your thought of Josh should man up and go to the market and buy some, from where exactly?
If Josh pre-sold 300+ cases and only 500 are out there, and most are sold already, where will he find it? He would do that if that option was available, but no way he could fill every order and then how would he choose who's to fill and who's not too. BO is doing a great thing, but their initial orders where very small and they took it off the site the next day as did Josh. BO can also buy closeouts from Topps and do things others can't always do...different ball game. Josh is direct with Topps, and Josh is only dealing with his numbers give to him by Topps thru Peach State. That was what he and many others were allocated. Hobby stores were mostly 5:1, distributors 6:1.

I hear what you are saying, but many places you order from can not only cancel or change you order they can notify if out of stock. I ordered an item off of amazon.com this week and was emailed afterwards saying order cancelled due to out of stock. It happens. It sucks. We all lose out on this. But how many on this board actually ordered it, and how many were going to before jumbos were announced? It sucks but there are more important things in life IMHO.

 

[brentandbecca]

I want to be clear on one thing. Josh did not cancel any actual orders, people put in REQUESTS for the product that are all subject to allocation.

And allstars, I have been on both sides of the coin as well.

This situation isn't as bad as you make it sound.

Amen.
Easy for someone else to bash and one who didn't pre-order from Josh but jumping in.
In fact, I spoke to Josh twice today and he said only one customer was upset and that everyone else responded nicely and that they understood.
If you read the posts here, those backing Josh are the ones that placed an order, whereas those not responding favorably had nothing to do with it for the most part.
Just a great aspect of the inet and message boards and why i tend to avoid them.

 

[allstars]

I'm not bashing anyone, just stating facts and expressing my views on good business practices vs bad. Brent I hear you, but we both know there will be an active secondary market on cases and that anyone can buy the product on the secondary market Josh included. Hopefully lessons will be learned, it's just a shame that collectors have to suffer because Josh erred and chose not to go buy the product to fulfill his obligations. Say what you want folks, it's unfortunate indeed, but it is what it is.

Gilmo, with all due respect, you are a relative noobie to this side of the fence. Break a few promises to your customers and you'll see the results. All you have in this business is your integrity and reputation, loose them and you're done.

Btw Brent, and I'm sure you're aware, Peach State is a superb distributor and imo the best there is. But Topps has no say in how they treat and allocate thier customers. They note that certain products can and will be allocated when they solicit them. In this particular case they noted that bdp jumbos were going to be highly allocated. More writing on the wall, right?

I have nothing personal against Josh, I wish him success. I'm just expressing my views as a full time dealer. Doing what he is doing would not be an option for me. I don't envy him. I've presold thousands of items and delivered on every one of them regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

You do realize that he can't fill orders with product he does not have right?

Absolutely incorrect. The product exists. It can be obtained from other sources, even if he has to pay more for his inventory.

Hypothetical: I promised you 300 apples from my crop and I promised Jim Witmer 500 apples from my crop, and you both agreed to pay me $2 per apple. My apple trees are infested with worms and my apples are worthless. However, you both relied upon my promise of selling you apples, and you have customers awaiting your wonderful apple pies and Witmer has customers awaiting his delicious apple brown betty. Your reputations and your business will be ruined because my crop is ruined.

However -- mine are not the only apples in town. Warren is selling apples for $2.50 each. He has thousands and thousands. I AM LEGALLY OBLIGATED to GET YOU YOUR APPLES, whether I can buy them for $.50, $3, or I can grow them. From a legal standpoint, I am obligated to buy from Warren or another apple salesman, and if I take a .50 hit per apple... that's business. If I DON'T get you your apples, and the street value is $2.50, .50 more than our contract, and you and Witmer can only buy them for $2.50, you are able to successfully sue me for .50 * the number of apples -- which is the damage you suffered by my breach of contract.

So, no, Chris, he can always get the product. The only time your above statemnet is the least bit valid would be if the product was outright cancelled -- an impossibility.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

These sells aren't done on ebay.

Most of them are done via email and there is wording about it being subject to allocation. Big box retailers aren't dumb.

I didn't say they were done on ebay.

Whether they're done on ebay, or email, or eharmony, or e-backalley, unless there is specific language such as being subject to allocation - whcih the posters here are not saying they had - there's a valid contract. As a retailer, Chris, what part of this are you not getting?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I want to be clear on one thing. Josh did not cancel any actual orders, people put in REQUESTS for the product that are all subject to allocation.


And allstars, I have been on both sides of the coin as well.

This situation isn't as bad as you make it sound.

I don't know who Josh is or what company he works for. Others here have not indicated that level of specificity. They've indicated that they ordered and were denied after allocation. If what you're saying is true for each and every "request", then he's off the hook and has done absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[cgilmo]

Absolutely incorrect. The product exists. It can be obtained from other sources, even if he has to pay more for his inventory.

Hypothetical: I promised you 300 apples from my crop and I promised Jim Witmer 500 apples from my crop, and you both agreed to pay me $2 per apple. My apple trees are infested with worms and my apples are worthless. However, you both relied upon my promise of selling you apples, and you have customers awaiting your wonderful apple pies and Witmer has customers awaiting his delicious apple brown betty. Your reputations and your business will be ruined because my crop is ruined.

However -- mine are not the only apples in town. Warren is selling apples for $2.50 each. He has thousands and thousands. I AM LEGALLY OBLIGATED to GET YOU YOUR APPLES, whether I can buy them for $.50, $3, or I can grow them. From a legal standpoint, I am obligated to buy from Warren or another apple salesman, and if I take a .50 hit per apple... that's business. If I DON'T get you your apples, and the street value is $2.50, .50 more than our contract, and you and Witmer can only buy them for $2.50, you are able to successfully sue me for .50 * the number of apples -- which is the damage you suffered by my breach of contract.

So, no, Chris, he can always get the product. The only time your above statemnet is the least bit valid would be if the product was outright cancelled -- an impossibility.

That does not change the fact that when he pre sells what he is actually doing is saying ok you can have that many if I get enough to fill the order. It's not a cut and dry transaction.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

That does not change the fact that when he pre sells what he is actually doing is saying ok you can have that many if I get enough to fill the order. It's not a cut and dry transaction.

Unless it is specifically indicated somewhere, that's not what he's doing. See the apple example above -- it's not "you can have 300 apples if I can fill the order" -- it's "you can have 300 apples, period.". Again, if it IS specifically indicated, that changes things.

 

[AMAZIN HOF COLLECTOR]

Ill throw this out there as I enjoyed this thread......

I buy 10 presell cases at XXXX price as they are going to be "loaded". Well Topps pulls the switcheroo and the "Hot Rookies" are left off the checklist. It comes time to pay for the rest of the cases (or the whole thing) and I tell them. "I dont want them anymore, thanks anyway." Am I wrong????

There was a thread like this after it happened a few years ago....and the buyer was flamed for not making good...

No horse in this race, just looking at both sides....

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Ill throw this out there as I enjoyed this thread......


I buy 10 presell cases at XXXX price as they are going to be "loaded". Well Topps pulls the switcheroo and the "Hot Rookies" are left off the checklist. It comes time to pay for the rest of the cases (or the whole thing) and I tell them. "I dont want them anymore, thanks anyway." Am I wrong????

There was a thread like this after it happened a few years ago....and the buyer was flamed for not making good...

No horse in this race, just looking at both sides....

I think you're wrong. Topps almost always places the "checklists are subject to change" language in their prelim checklists, and even if they don't, a seasoned collector such as yourself knows that they're subject to change. You ordered X cases, you got X cases.

To re-read the last few threads, CHris, as a businessman, I would hope you would know to let your clients know that your pre-sales are contingent for this exact reason.

 

[AMAZIN HOF COLLECTOR]

I think you're wrong. Topps almost always places the "checklists are subject to change" language in their prelim checklists, and even if they don't, a seasoned collector such as yourself knows that they're subject to change. You ordered X cases, you got X cases.

To re-read the last few threads, CHris, as a businessman, I would hope you would know to let your clients know that your pre-sales are contingent for this exact reason.

Just a hypo, I never did it! Easy fella!

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

I just went back and reviewed my email chain with Josh.

On June 8th I was forwarded the solicitation from Topps with only the following content added from Josh:

Hobby- $XXXJumbo- $***


I countered his offer proposing a large quantity as reason for additional discount.

To which he responds:

Jim,


I can do $***, but I can't guarantee any quantity right now. Since Topps has never done Jumbo Draft before I have to make sure I can order whatever I need to and not have to order 5 Hobby just to get 1 Jumbo. I'll put you in for 60 cases, but I'll have to let you know for sure once I hear from Topps.



Thanks,

Josh


Now, I suppose the argument could be made that if I accepted his original price, there was no language at the time that would have indicated that I couldn't get what I wanted at that specific price. It was only after I countered the price that he informed me of the possible allocation issue. So if I had stated, I'll take 60 at $*** (his original price) then he would stand to have a legal obligation.

Regardless, my counteroffer avoided a contract being made and he was able to dictate the new terms to me in his counteroffer to my counter.

 

[phillyfan0417]

I just went back and reviewed my email chain with Josh.

On June 8th I was forwarded the solicitation from Topps with only the following content added from Josh:

Hobby- $XXXJumbo- $***


I countered his offer proposing a large quantity as reason for additional discount.

To which he responds:

Jim,


I can do $***, but I can't guarantee any quantity right now. Since Topps has never done Jumbo Draft before I have to make sure I can order whatever I need to and not have to order 5 Hobby just to get 1 Jumbo. I'll put you in for 60 cases, but I'll have to let you know for sure once I hear from Topps.



Thanks,

Josh


Now, I suppose the argument could be made that if I accepted his original price, there was no language at the time that would have indicated that I couldn't get what I wanted at that specific price. It was only after I countered the price that he informed me of the possible allocation issue. So if I had stated, I'll take 60 at $*** (his original price) then he would stand to have a legal obligation.

Regardless, my counteroffer avoided a contract being made and he was able to dictate the new terms to me in his counteroffer to my counter.

I think your assuming if you did accept and he responded he wouldnt have said the same thing. No?

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I just went back and reviewed my email chain with Josh.


On June 8th I was forwarded the solicitation from Topps with only the following content added from Josh:

Hobby- $XXXJumbo- $***


I countered his offer proposing a large quantity as reason for additional discount.

To which he responds:

Jim,


I can do $***, but I can't guarantee any quantity right now. Since Topps has never done Jumbo Draft before I have to make sure I can order whatever I need to and not have to order 5 Hobby just to get 1 Jumbo. I'll put you in for 60 cases, but I'll have to let you know for sure once I hear from Topps.



Thanks,

Josh


Now, I suppose the argument could be made that if I accepted his original price, there was no language at the time that would have indicated that I couldn't get what I wanted at that specific price. It was only after I countered the price that he informed me of the possible allocation issue. So if I had stated, I'll take 60 at $*** (his original price) then he would stand to have a legal obligation.

Regardless, my counteroffer avoided a contract being made and he was able to dictate the new terms to me in his counteroffer to my counter.

Bingo.

 

[BowmanChromeAddict]

I think your assuming if you did accept and he responded he wouldnt have said the same thing. No?

Tim, I'm sure he probably would, but from a strictly "legal" perspective he offered me a price without any contingency attached related to quantity or availability of product. At that point had I stated a quantity and accepted his price, I believe there would be a legally enforceable contract. (NOT STATING THAT I WOULD BE LEGALLY ENFORCING IT!)

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I think your assuming if you did accept and he responded he wouldnt have said the same thing. No?

Doesn't matter. As long as Jim responded timely, you've got offer and acceptance. Contract formed (assuming he was willing to sell 60 cases - if he wasn't, then no, no contract formed).

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Tim, I'm sure he probably would, but from a strictly "legal" perspective he offered me a price without any contingency attached related to quantity or availability of product. At that point had I stated a quantity and accepted his price, I believe there would be a legally enforceable contract. (NOT STATING THAT I WOULD BE LEGALLY ENFORCING IT!)

No. To take this to the extreme, if he quoted you $600 hobby, $900 jumbo, and you said "Okay, I'll take 1 MILLION jumbo cases, $900 million. Put it on my mastercard." This contract is barred by impossibility.