The situation
A customer is buying an item and trading something in. During negotiation, they want more credit for their trade than it’s actually worth. To close the deal you raise the sold item’s price by the same amount, so the math the customer sees works out — but the trade and the sale are both stored at inflated numbers.
Why this matters internally:
- Gross profit on the sold item looks higher than it really is.
- Partnership splits pay the partner on a sale price the partner had nothing to do with — they take a hit on a markup that exists only to fund the trade.
The fix is two fields on the order line items.
How to enter it
On the line for the item being sold, fill in Trade Concession with the amount of markup you added to fund the trade-in over-credit (a positive number).
On the line for the trade-in, fill in Trade Actual Value with what the trade is really worth (a negative number, less negative than the credit shown to the customer).
Both fields only appear for users who have the View Trade Negotiation Fields permission (ShowOrderTradeOffset), set per user at Settings → Team → [user] → Access & Permissions (or via their permission group). It’s a per-user control — there’s no store-level switch.
What changes (and what doesn’t)
The customer-facing invoice keeps showing UnitPrice on every line — the inflated numbers stay visible exactly as you negotiated them. The customer never sees the Concession or Actual Value fields.
Behind the scenes, every report that cares about realized revenue uses the corrected numbers:
- Gross Profit Report — backs out the concession on sold lines, uses Actual Value on trade-in lines.
- Partnership reconciliation — partner is paid on the realized sale, not the puffed-up negotiation price.
- Sales-history dashboard — monthly totals reflect actual revenue.
Example — single sold item, single trade
Customer buys a $10,000 ring (the realistic price) and wants $5,000 for a trade that’s actually worth $3,000. You raise the ring to $12,000 so the math closes.
| Line | UnitPrice (shown) | Trade Concession | Trade Actual Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ring | $12,000 | $2,000 | — |
| Trade-in | -$5,000 | — | -$3,000 |
Customer sees $12,000 sale and $5,000 trade credit, paying $7,000 net. Internal GP on the ring is computed against $10,000.
Example — multiple sold items, one trade
Same customer also wants a $8,500 pendant (realistic price). To close the deal you split the markup: $1,500 on the ring, $500 on the pendant. The two items have different partners.
| Line | UnitPrice (shown) | Trade Concession | Trade Actual Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ring (Partner A) | $11,500 | $1,500 | — |
| Pendant (Partner B) | $9,000 | $500 | — |
| Trade-in | -$5,000 | — | -$3,000 |
Customer total still works out the same way they negotiated it. Partner A’s split runs against $10,000 (realistic ring price), Partner B’s against $8,500 (realistic pendant price). Neither partner gets shorted on the markup the salesperson made up.
The total of all Trade Concession amounts on the invoice should equal the over-credit on the trade-in line (UnitPrice − Actual Value). Nothing enforces that — it’s just the math you’re keeping straight.
Tips
- If the customer’s not getting an over-credit on the trade, leave both fields blank. The trade-in’s UnitPrice is the credit AND the true value.
- Concession is always positive (the markup amount). Actual Value is always negative (the trade is a credit).
- Both fields are line-level and never appear on the customer’s printed or emailed invoice.