There has been much debate on this board lately about what the "correct" behavior should be when buying or selling a chip in a situation where the buyer or seller does not have "perfect" knowledge of the value of the chip. Of course there is no one correct answer, accept that you should do what YOU believe is the right thing to do. If the seller offers a chip for a certain price and the buyer accepts the offer, then legally and ethically a good deal has been made to the satisfaction of both the buyer and the seller.

No one has perfect knowledge about an item and market conditions are changing all the time. So even though one party or the other may think that they had "superior" knowledge of the chip and may think that they got a great deal that may not turn out to be necessarily true. The real value of a chip is only determined by what a seller will accept and what a buyer will pay. There are no absolutes. Catalogs are only guides. If catalog prices were absolutely correct, than prices would never change. Ethically, the seller only need to sell the chip for what he is willing to accept for it and the buyer should only pay what he feels the chip is worth. If there is no match there is no deal. This is not that complicated.

So it all gets down to individual opinions. The opinions of the buyer and the seller. And everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The only thing that I feel that is wrong ethically is when someone tries to enforce their opinions on others. You are entitled to your own opinion, just as everyone else is. When the name calling starts because someone does not have the same opinion as you do, that is wrong. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and to live their lives as they see fit, just as you are. They can be no more wrong or right in their ethical behavior than you are.