3 ms·
it’s absolutely their fault in many ways, I don’t dispute that, but I absolutely dispute the idea that this must be a grand conspiracy to trick people into buyi
by phphphphp 4y ago
it’s absolutely their fault in many ways, I don’t dispute that, but I absolutely dispute the idea that this must be a grand conspiracy to trick people into buying coffee with an impossible story.
They were dealing with a broker who is responsible for getting a deal done, the broker has no investment in the intricacies of the deal, so it’s totally plausible that the broker was saying whatever was necessary to get the deal done even if that meant providing ambiguous information that could have confused a naive supplier.
- lisper 4y ago> this must be a grand conspiracy I didn't say it had to be a conspiracy, only that I find this hypothesis plausible in today's world. > the broker has no investment in the intricacies of the deal He certainly does. Brokers don't get paid unless their deals close. > it’s totally plausible that the broker was saying whatever was necessary to get the deal done Of course. It's still their responsibility to achieve clarity on what they are signing up for before agreeing. At the very least they should have done a sanity check on the terms and the bottom line.
- phphphphp 4y agoThe specifics of the arrangement with the broker are not disclosed but a reasonable guess is that the broker is taking a percentage. A percentage of anything is better than a percentage of nothing. Much like a realtor, the incentives of the broker and supplier are not aligned. If the broker cared about the outcome then the broker would have behaved very differently throughout the entire process. Saying the broker would behave in the suppliers best interests is like saying a sales person in a software business will behave in the best interests of the companies developers.