4 ms·

You're moving your goalpost. Up above you said, > They thought they had a deal to sell 6000 "units" for $250,000. Now you're agreeing that they didn't necessa

You're moving your goalpost. Up above you said, > They thought they had a deal to sell 6000 "units" for $250,000. Now you're agreeing that they didn't necessarily have that deal up front, and that they should have asked for it.

lisper 4y ago
Yes, that's what I thought at the time. But then I re-read the article and realized that it was intentionally misleading. It is now clear to me that not only are they idiots, they are also dishonest. The summary of the situation, in their words, is: "TLDR: We got grifted by a multi-billion dollar distributor for $250,000." That is a lie. What actually happened is that a broker came to them with an offer which they accepted despite not achieving clarity on exactly what the offer actually was. They thought they were signing up for 6000 bags when in fact they were signing up for six times as many because they did not understand a term of art in their industry. This was their first mistake. Then, when they realized their mistake, they decided to proceed and invest the necessary capital to meet the order without fully assessing the potential risks. That was their second mistake. They could have pulled the plug then, but they chose not to. Then it all fell through. That's tough, I feel sorry for them, but they are not the victims here. Deals falling through is a Thing That Happens in business. That's why there are contracts and insurance, and why finance and risk management is a thing. At every step in the process, their situation was 100% their fault. No one lied to them. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to do something they didn't want to do. No one did anything that was not part of standard business practice. The situation is entirely the result of their naivete, failure to do their due diligence, failure to properly assess risks, and unbelievably poor decision making in the face of newly discovered information. And now they are digging themselves in even deeper by accusing their distributor of grifting them. No, sorry, they were not grifted. They were just stupid, and rather than admit it and learn from it, they are trying to shift the blame to their distributor and make this sound like a David-v-Goliath story. It isn't. It's a company-being-stupid-failing-to-own-up-to-it story.
onphonenow 4y ago
Are you saying they agreed to a deal without even knowing the price of a ‘unit’?? They truly are idiots then
- lisper 4y ago
  Others have pointed this out, but it's possible that the estimated volume was quoted in units while the price was quoted in bags. That seems unlikely, but it's possible. If that is what happened, then their IQ (idiocy quotient) is not quite so far off the scale as it would have been if they really had agreed to the deal without knowing the price at all. But it's still pretty damn high. And under no conceivable scenario are the justified in accusing the distributor of being a bad actor.
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    But even then the price wouldn’t make sense right? I mean - regardless of unit confusion, didn’t they have to at some point calculate a price per unit themselves ? At that point the error would be pretty clear no? I can’t think of a combination of unit confusion that results in a normal price
    - lisper 4y ago
      > But even then the price wouldn’t make sense right? Yes, it would, if the price was quoted per bag rather than per unit/case. That seems unlikely, but it's possible, and it would make the initial confusion slightly more understandable.

lisper 4y ago

Yes, that's what I thought at the time. But then I re-read the article and realized that it was intentionally misleading. It is now clear to me that not only are they idiots, they are also dishonest. The summary of the situation, in their words, is: "TLDR: We got grifted by a multi-billion dollar distributor for $250,000." That is a lie. What actually happened is that a broker came to them with an offer which they accepted despite not achieving clarity on exactly what the offer actually was. They thought they were signing up for 6000 bags when in fact they were signing up for six times as many because they did not understand a term of art in their industry. This was their first mistake. Then, when they realized their mistake, they decided to proceed and invest the necessary capital to meet the order without fully assessing the potential risks. That was their second mistake. They could have pulled the plug then, but they chose not to. Then it all fell through. That's tough, I feel sorry for them, but they are not the victims here. Deals falling through is a Thing That Happens in business. That's why there are contracts and insurance, and why finance and risk management is a thing. At every step in the process, their situation was 100% their fault. No one lied to them. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to do something they didn't want to do. No one did anything that was not part of standard business practice. The situation is entirely the result of their naivete, failure to do their due diligence, failure to properly assess risks, and unbelievably poor decision making in the face of newly discovered information. And now they are digging themselves in even deeper by accusing their distributor of grifting them. No, sorry, they were not grifted. They were just stupid, and rather than admit it and learn from it, they are trying to shift the blame to their distributor and make this sound like a David-v-Goliath story. It isn't. It's a company-being-stupid-failing-to-own-up-to-it story.

onphonenow 4y ago

Are you saying they agreed to a deal without even knowing the price of a ‘unit’?? They truly are idiots then

lisper 4y ago
Others have pointed this out, but it's possible that the estimated volume was quoted in units while the price was quoted in bags. That seems unlikely, but it's possible. If that is what happened, then their IQ (idiocy quotient) is not quite so far off the scale as it would have been if they really had agreed to the deal without knowing the price at all. But it's still pretty damn high. And under no conceivable scenario are the justified in accusing the distributor of being a bad actor.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  But even then the price wouldn’t make sense right? I mean - regardless of unit confusion, didn’t they have to at some point calculate a price per unit themselves ? At that point the error would be pretty clear no? I can’t think of a combination of unit confusion that results in a normal price
  - lisper 4y ago
    > But even then the price wouldn’t make sense right? Yes, it would, if the price was quoted per bag rather than per unit/case. That seems unlikely, but it's possible, and it would make the initial confusion slightly more understandable.