Hmm. Don't you just dislike questionable online sellers?

So I emailed someone to purchase a necklace. It was something that I pondered over for a while cos while I liked it, I didn't love it. But it was nice and it was okay cheap, so I emailed her.

So the reply was that I should add $2.50 if I want it via registered post.

To which I said, the listing says $20 with registered post.

Technically, I probably shouldn't quibble over $2.50. But then, $2.50 is a lot when it comes to something you're not sure you really wanted in the first place. And it changed the entire value of the necklace to me cos while $17.50 was okay, $20 was not. And besides, the reason for quibbling over small amounts always boils down to principle arguments, isn't it?

So anyway, she replies to say sorry, someone else has paid for it.

Maybe it's just me and my old-fashioned retail ethics not fitting into the world of fast cash via offloading the junk you no longer want aka sell it to the first person who gives you $$, despite the fact that someone else has basically reserved the item and is working out with you the questionable copy in your product listing.

If the other party had reserved it before me, why was I given the acc no to transfer funds to? Are we playing fastest fingers? And if it's after me, well, payment is supposed to be made in 24 hours and time is definitely not up by the time she told me someone else has already paid for it.

(Yeah, I kinda enjoyed Business Law in Year 1 when I had to do all these rationalising and hypotheses.)

Ah well. No big loss anyway. Just 20 bucks more for me to spend on film.