Fair trade?


PDA






Eric F
August 16, 2008, 08:59 AM
I have a pending offer for a trade. I have an Armi Sport Billy Dixon 50-90 sharps 49 peices of bress a few bullets and dies.
trading for an
Armi Sport 56-50 spencer rifle and 50 peices of brass no dies. What do you folks think Fair trade? Both rifles are in almost new condition with no defects sharps has been shot 25 times spencer about 150. Thanks for the input

I really wanted a sharps in 50-90 but I also really want the spencer too. There is no way in the next 10 years I will be able to afford a spencer. A trade is the only way.

I posted this in the rifle section a few days back and got no answers, perhaps you good folks here can give me some insite.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fair trade?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gru556
August 16, 2008, 09:06 AM
A fair trade is when both parties are satisfied.I once traded a good 870 for abeat up old flint 50,my son thought I was nuts but I could find an 870 in every corner of the house.Now I can find an old flint 50 in one.

Shawnee
August 16, 2008, 09:57 AM
+1 for what "gru556" said.

If both parties are happy, it's a good trade.

:cool:

sharps59
August 16, 2008, 11:55 AM
I agree on the far trade thing and w/ that said. I am not a fan of armi sport esp. there quality. So now that you know were i stand the 50-56 are problematice when it comes to getting them to feed properly. So expect to spend a lot of time w/ it. if you do the trade for it check here and other boards to see what guys had to do to get them to feed properly.:banghead:

4v50 Gary
August 16, 2008, 06:16 PM
I think it's fair.

Eric F
August 16, 2008, 06:46 PM
I am thinking I would be happy with it, I have pics on the way and can ask for a vid, demonstration. Guy seems fairly up front about issues(few at that). Thanks for the responce.

arcticap
August 16, 2008, 08:39 PM
I think that it would only end up being a "fair trade" if both parties were able to have the right to reject the deal based on a complete inspection and test firing.
Would anyone buy a used car without a test drive or having it inspected by a mechanic?
That's the only way to insure that everything about each gun was divulged.
If one or both parties wants to give up that right, then that's up to each based on his informed consent of choosing to ignore "buyer beware".
But if one party doesn't want to give up that right, then he would be playing it safe and protecting his initial investment.
At least these terms would provide some insurance that both parties are completely satisfied before the deal is finalized.
These terms would be to help prevent either party from being stuck with an unfair trade.
Otherwise it's an "as is" deal, and one of the parties could be totally out of luck and dissatisfied in the end.

mykeal
August 16, 2008, 11:23 PM
Articap - I had just written a note that said the same thing and saw that you had beat me to it, but said it better. Well done, sir.

Eric F - read what he said very carefully.

Eric F
August 17, 2008, 12:12 AM
Yes I agree perhaps We could ship agreements then ship guns with ammo haave a set time to agree or disagree based on exames and shootings and either keep or send back. A well thought plan.

Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fair trade?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!