Friend A deserves the “$50”. However he should be charged that $50 for all of the mediation efforts and lost time incurred here.
I actually think A has a right to be irritated. Just because he was willing to offer the discount to B & C, doesn’t mean he wanted to do so for D,E,F,G. If I had six extra bottles of Marcassin and offered to sell it to two of you at my cost (less than market), I wouldn’t want you to immediately sell four of them to others I didn’t know, certainly without asking me upfront. I might not care, but just as likely I would either opt to sell the other four to four more people I know as a favor to them, or I’d ask that those that I don’t know pay me closer to market.
In this case A intended to do the favor to B & C. So he should still be fine doing them a favor. Using the $50 basis, $16.67 (or 1/3) of the favor goes to them. So A should only be concerned with $33.33 (or 2/3) of the discount. I think the two sides should compromise. A should just eat $25 (1/2 the discount), for as others have said he gets the sale and has no reason to deny B & C their share of the compromised discount. As to the extra $25 (1/2 the discount the buyers pay; D,E,F,G should pay it as they don’t know A, and would still be receiving a small discount. If B & C can’t or won’t get the others to pay then they should just pay it or part of it. The two of them should have known to at least ask A ahead of time if he cared.
A work colleague of mine related this to me recently: his marine son recently returned from Afghanistan after a tour there (and previously in Iraq). When anyone asks the son how he’s doing, his reply is “it’s a great day, no one is shooting at me.”
I can’t believe the pettiness of the premise for this thread, or frankly how many people are willing to give opinions on whether one side or the other is in the right or the wrong over $50. Jesus H. Christ. The fact that a couple of upper middle class dudes are arguing over $50 on a $350 transaction, when they piss away more than that in wine on a daily basis is just stupid.
If friend A had initially told friend C that friend B was planning to keep friend A out of the loop, than friend B has an obligation to make friend C remain in constant communication with friend A while always keeping friend D in the dark regardless of where friend B, friend A and friend E stand—enter friend F, the fly in the ointment; Whereas if-so fact-so then friend A retains friend C’s friend, (I will call him friend G) as attorney all parties other than friend E, friend B and friend C really have skin in the game and wholeheartedly can remain on a friendly basis with friend A.
You do realize, I hope, that if someone asks a question or posts on a topic you do not consider important or worthy, you are free to ignore the thread.
you could have just said what the actual number was, so we could respond into actual facts instead of distorted ones you presented intentionally to provoke the “lol $50 stfu” response.
that being said, still don’t care, and think that the seller should quit being a baby and make them get him drunk on fine wines.