why are sellers to be trusted, but buyers are not?

“That way there are no horror stories.”

@moto_man - Who are you kidding?!

Did you think this through? Everything will work out great, until it doesn’t. As one example, when does the seller receive their money? When the buyer receives the shipment, one day after receiving it (so they have a chance to check out their new equipment), or some other timing? What happens when the buyer says the equipment/speaker doesn’t work properly, or isn’t in the expected condition, or some other form of “this isn’t what I expected” based on a “failure to communicate” between buyer and seller, or a poorly worded advertisement, or unrealistic expectations? What is the broker’s specific role in the event of (ugh!) shipping damage? Those can take a long time to resolve if a shipper is involved.  Will every case of shipping damage involve a return to the seller? Who pays for the return shipping? What if there really is no damage? Is the “broker” going to referee every type of dispute?

Finally, how would you determine your fee, and would there be a change order  in the event of a dispute or some other calamity that exponentially increases your time commitment.  I doubt you would get away with simply adding it to the bill, as is SOP for attorneys.  Good luck in your endeavor but, you couldn’t pay me enough for that job! I would rather be a marriage counselor! 

@mitch2 , those are escrow agreement drafting issues.  The agreement provides for those types of issues.  Basically the agreement would normally provide that the money gets released (1) upon agreement of both parties, (2) if the event that it is DOA, that would be addressed, (3) if there was shipping damage, that is typically on the seller anyway, since the typical sale is that it must arrive undamaged to the buyer, and (4) if there is some skullduggery about whether it arrived in the condition promised, that is something that would be worked out between the parties.  In other words, the escrow agreement tries to address all contingencies, no different than any other contract. Fee is as said, the same as PayPal G&S.   Just an Idea that I had after spending $16K with a seller that I didn't know (which worked out great, but . . .)

@moto_man - That all sounds good, but I still predict a heavy lift. As you know, when you stand between somebody's money and the outcome they believe they deserve, things don’t always go smoothly.  I hope the indemnity clause is air-tight.

Moto_man is right, the issues are precisely why one has an escrow arrangement --very common for far more at stake. If there is ultimately disagreement the agreement provides for interpleader- the property goes to court and the parties litigate; the agent follows the court's direction. The escrow agent is usually held harmless by all (and presumably has insurance). 

I think it is a great idea, and just mentioned it elsewhere. I’ve had occasion to deal with this in all kinds of property transactions for myself. You can never be too careful, but the escrow system solves a lot of problems. Would I want to take it on as the escrow agent? No. But, done at the right scale, with the right people, it could be good for us citizens.