B/S/T Etiquette

CardPadre · #1 02-22-2025, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

I didn't see anything about offers in the original post, seemed he just wanted to buy a card that was for sale.

OhioLawyerF5 · #2 02-22-2025, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CardPadre

I didn't see anything about offers in the original post, seemed he just wanted to buy a card that was for sale.

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer. I don't really have time to explain all the nuance of contract law, but that's the gist. Which is why I used the term offer. It's a legal term that applies even if the seller wasn't open to negotiate. But it's important to understand so people don't mistakenly think that they have a right to the item just because they agree to the listed price. They don't. They can just make an offer to pay that price. Seller has no obligation to accept every offer to pay their price, even if they are first.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 02-22-2025, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer. I don't really have time to explain all the nuance of contract law, but that's the gist. Which is why I used the term offer. It's a legal term that applies even if the seller wasn't open to negotiate. But it's important to understand so people don't mistakenly think that they have a right to the item just because they agree to the listed price. They don't. They can just make an offer to pay that price. Seller has no obligation to accept every offer to pay their price, even if they are first.

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

maniac_73 · #4 02-22-2025, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

I mean it�s irrelevant since I sold the cards to the first person who asked for it which was 30mins before the OP Dm�d me and posted on the thread. Which I told him through DM�s. He wasn�t even in 2nd

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

OhioLawyerF5 · #5 02-22-2025, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As a legal matter, correct. An "invitation to treat" under the English common law. That said, as a matter of etiquette which was the OP's question, it's probably the right and expected thing to take the first offer absent unusual circumstances.

I see no reason to get upset by a seller exercising his right. If it's proper etiquette to require a seller to accept the first offer (which I disagree with), it should also be proper etiquette to not whine when the seller doesn't sell to you. That's a bigger breach of etiquette to me.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 02-22-2025, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I see no reason to get upset by a seller exercising his right. If it's proper etiquette to require a seller to accept the first offer (which I disagree with), it should also be proper etiquette to not whine when the seller doesn't sell to you. That's a bigger breach of etiquette to me.

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

OhioLawyerF5 · #7 02-22-2025, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

I just don't think people should bring emotion into business. So, doing what you have a right to do is your prerogative and not a breach of etiquette.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 02-22-2025, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I just don't think people should bring emotion into business. So, doing what you have a right to do is your prerogative and not a breach of etiquette.

Imagine if a seller made this explicit, how would it go over? For sale 1933 Goudey #53 Babe Ruth PSA 3 12K. Please note that I have the right to sell to whoever I want and being the first to say I'll take it does not mean I will sell to you.

maniac_73 · #9 02-22-2025, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

Correct and that�s what I did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Peter_Spaeth · #10 02-22-2025, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Correct and that’s what I did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, was not implying otherwise, just transitioned into a more general discussion.

bk400 · #11 02-22-2025, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, the answer to the question whether one has a legal obligation to do something is often not the same as the answer to the question what is the right thing to do. Just my opinion, but I think normally one should sell to the first person who offers to buy at the posted price. YMMV.

I agree. In most (perhaps all, but not 100% sure) US states, there is no legal duty to warn a blind kid who is about to dive into an empty swimming pool. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it anyway.

As people living in an actual community, we go above and beyond -- and sometimes even break -- the stated law all the time.

Balticfox · #12 02-22-2025, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts. When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer.

Ugghhhh. The law is therefore written with misleading and thus poor terminology. (Lawyers aren't known for being good writers.)

On the stock market sellers "offer" stock at a certain price. Buyers can take the offerings or "bid" a lower price. Any sellers are then free to hit the bid. Stock prices are therefore always in a state of unstable equilibrium, i.e. a stock's current price is where there's an equal amount of supply and demand but this can change at any moment.

OhioLawyerF5 · #13 02-23-2025, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Ugghhhh. The law is therefore written with misleading and thus poor terminology. (Lawyers aren't known for being good writers.)

On the stock market sellers "offer" stock at a certain price. Buyers can take the offerings or "bid" a lower price. Any sellers are then free to hit the bid. Stock prices are therefore always in an unstable equilibrium, i.e. a stock's current price is where there's an equal amount of supply and demand but this can change at any moment.

It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.

Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't.

P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world.

Pato15 · #14 02-23-2025, 07:58 AM

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

jayshum · #15 02-23-2025, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pato15

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

This happens all the time in the housing market. No one seems to have a problem with it.

Balticfox · #16 02-23-2025, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayshum

This happens all the time in the housing market. No one seems to have a problem with it.

I do! For the listing price not to be treated as a firm offer to sell at that price is absurd. And you'll find it very difficult to find any stock broker who does not agree with me. Offer/Ask=the Price at which a Seller agrees to Sell. Bid=the Price at which a Buyer agrees to Buy.

Mark17 · #17 02-23-2025, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pato15

I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

Not me. I'd take the higher offer.

We aren't talking about a kidney for transplant - we're talking about highly non-essential collectibles.

Brent G. · #18 02-23-2025, 09:02 AM

Man people choose some weird hills to die on here ...

timn1 · #19 02-23-2025, 01:17 PM

I'm not a lawyer but your explanation makes perfect sense to me - some people are never going to be convinced of anything, though.

Also, the scenario of preventing the blind kid diving into the empty pool seems like a comically bad analogy for the selling of a sports card....

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.

Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't.

P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world.

bk400 · #20 02-23-2025, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timn1

Also, the scenario of preventing the blind kid diving into the empty pool seems like a comically bad analogy for the selling of a sports card....

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

Peter_Spaeth · #21 02-23-2025, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

I guess I too am in the minority, but I would have thought selling to the first taker was just basic civil behavior and common sense. Would not have expected all the resistance to that concept.

OhioLawyerF5 · #22 02-24-2025, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

This analogy is just as bad. Walmart is a retail store open to the public with the very purpose of selling their goods to any and all who come to buy them. This is a vastly different scenario than a private person selling personal property.

You are trying to hard to justify pointless outrage over a seller's rights.

frankbmd · #23 02-24-2025, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

I guess the yolk(s) would be on her.

gregndodgers · #24 02-24-2025, 11:18 PM

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman�s terms, �first dibs.� Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Peter_Spaeth · #25 02-25-2025, 12:04 AM

In a BST post, who is the offeree? For an offer to be binding upon acceptance, you need an offeree, as I understand it. Otherwise, like an advertisement, it's an invitation to treat/invitation to bargain. The specificity of the post is not the point.

OhioLawyerF5 · #26 02-25-2025, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

I'll post the case law when I get a chance. I'm going to need to see your citations, because that is most definitely not the general principle of contract law. Only if there is a specific local statute that modifies the common law will that be the case, or if there is a specific term in the listing stating an intent to sell to the first taker. There is no "meeting of the minds" in your example that is required for a contract. Posting a listing to a broad, general audience does not put the seller in privity of contract with everyone who reads it. The buyer must express their intent to contract, and the seller must agree to contract with that specific person. In your example, the seller has never entered into contract with that buyer, and no contract was formed.

toledo_mudhen · #27 02-25-2025, 06:40 AM

"eBay sellers have control over who can bid on and buy their items. You can block individual buyers or set buyer requirements based on specific criteria.

If you�ve had an issue with a buyer and don�t want them to purchase or bid on your items, you can add them to your Blocked buyers list. They'll be unable to place bids or buy from you until you remove them from the list."

OhioLawyerF5 · #28 02-25-2025, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman�s terms, �first dibs.� Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Here's some of the landmark cases:

Fisher v. Bell (1961) and Partridge v. Crittenden (1968) set forth the longstanding principle that posting or advertising an item for sale is an "invitation to treat" and not an "offer to sell."

The cases you are referring to are Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) and All Phases of Services Ltd v Johnson (2014). They suggest that what is usually an invitation to treat can become an offer to sell IF the advertisment clearly indicates and intent to be bound, and the intentions of both parties are clear and agreed upon, demonstrated through the conduct of the parties involved.

So as I said, posting a card for sale, with a price, is a invitation to treat and not an offer UNLESS the listing clearly states that the first person to accept will get the card.

Leon · #29 02-25-2025, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman�s terms, �first dibs.� Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Well, I don't know law and am not a lawyer, but that is not what this private forum's rules are. First dibs is almost always the case, but not always. Sellers here can sell to whomever they want to, or don't want to. They can even back out of a deal they said ok to. (as long as they don't make it a habit). Pretty simple.
.
.

ullmandds · #30 02-25-2025, 08:10 AM

I have been on both sides of this dilemna on the bst. There have been atleast 2-3 occasions where I underpriced cards significantly and they sold quickly...and I honored the prices as it was MY FAULT.

Additionally I recall a time where I won an autographed pete rose kahns weiner card on the auction page here...at a bargain price. The seller attempted to reneg as he was not happy with the selling price. The net54 goonsquad backed me up and the seller was "encouraged" to honor the deal.

50 shades of grey?

JimC · #31 02-25-2025, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

Well, I don't know law and am not a lawyer, but that is not what this private forum's rules are. First dibs is almost always the case, but not always. Sellers here can sell to whomever they want to, or don't want to. They can even back out of a deal they said ok to. (as long as they don't make it a habit). Pretty simple.
.
.

Leon:

Can buyers also back out of a deal they agreed to?

gunboat82 · #32 02-25-2025, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

This post is contrary to the Uniform Commercial Code and its distinction between a binding sales contract and an "invitation to offer."

Mark17 · #33 02-25-2025, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman�s terms, �first dibs.� Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

OhioLawyerF5 · #34 02-25-2025, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

Because he doesn't understand the difference between including terms of sale in your ad and including terms clearly evidencing an intent to be bound by the sales listing. Those are vastly different things.

gregndodgers · #35 02-25-2025, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

For a multitude of reasons, one cannot compare the contractual process, including the legal rights and duties, of selling a home to selling a baseball card. Obviously, a home and any sale of a home are much more complex transactions. Hence, an MLS listing is generally not an offer but information about a home that is treated as an invitation to make an offer.

OhioLawyerF5 · #36 02-26-2025, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Hey look! I can do it to.

This statement is so far off based it isn't funny. It has no basis in contract law and is false. Material terms being included in a sales listing does not turn it into an offer. It must also include a clear statement of intent to be bound.

Balticfox · #37 02-23-2025, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Technically and legally, a posting for sale is an invitation for offers, even though the post didn't say it. It is legally implied. A sale is a contract between two people. A contract requires offer and acceptance. So there has to be an offer. Even if a person isn't willing to negotiate, a listing with a price is not an offer. The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts.

You'd be losing a lot of money mixing up offers=pink sell tickets and bids=blue buy tickets working in a stock brokerage. It's your error, you eat it. Your firm does not. (Unless you quit of course and even then your firm will still take any loss out of any salary owing to you.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

When you go to walmart, their price is not the offer. It is technically an invitation to hear offers, even if they will only accept the price as marked. When you check out, you are making an offer to purchase at the listed price. When they take your money, they are accepting your offer.

That's not consistent with another detail that has the force of law in many jurisdictions including my own. If there are two price tags on an item, the retailer MUST honour the lower price tag at the cash register. In other words, the price tags are treated as the retailer's offer to sell under the law.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BST etiquette	Flintboy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	51	01-01-2023 07:47 PM
B/S/T etiquette question	pokerplyr80	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	05-16-2016 10:33 PM
Ebay etiquette	celoknob	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	03-19-2010 11:15 PM
Question about B/S/T etiquette	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	05-23-2008 12:53 PM
forum etiquette	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	04-23-2004 10:35 AM