B/S/T Etiquette

[OhioLawyerF5]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

The stock market and the housing market are very different as far as how they are regulated and how they work. Also, people have no problem offering less than the listed price for a house so why should a seller be prohibited from accepting a higher offer?

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Also, people have no problem offering less than the listed price for a house....

That's a bid.

Originally Posted by jayshum

...so why should a seller be prohibited from accepting a higher offer?

No need for a prohibition. But since a buyer should be able to simply take up the offering, there would be no need to bid a higher price than the offering, i.e. listed price.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That's a bid.



No need for a prohibition. But since a buyer should be able to simply take up the offering, there would be no need to bid a higher price than the offering, i.e. listed price.

I'm sorry if you don't like how the housing market works, but I don't think it's going to change just to make you happy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

B/S/T translations.

"Asking $1000 net to me dlvd."
Translation: if you offer me $1000, I'll consider it.

"I'll take it!!"
Translation: I offer $1000, should you choose to accept it.

"PM sent"
Translation: useless attempt to discourage subsequent offers because being first is irrelevant.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

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.

For someone appearing to work in the stock market, you seem to not understand fundamental differences between a brokered sale of stock and a sale of private personal property, and the legal reasons for that (hint: there were a couple important laws passed in the 30s that deal with securities and treat them differently).

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

For someone appearing to work in the stock market....

Yes, that's what many customers would say about stockbrokers back in the day!

It's interesting though. If you asked me now whether I should have become an actual stock broker many years earlier in the 1970's, I'd now say "Sure!" But if you asked me whether I'd like to be a stock broker now, I'd say "No!" Times have changed.

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

..you seem to not understand fundamental differences between a brokered sale of stock and a sale of private personal property, and the legal reasons for that (hint: there were a couple important laws passed in the 30s that deal with securities and treat them differently).

I understand that stock and futures (e.g. commodities) markets are about as pure and efficient markets as can exist. I'm also fully aware that other kinds of selling fall far short of these in terms of purity/efficiency. Unlike you though I find this situation to be sad.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Yes, that's what many customers would say about stockbrokers back in the day!

It's interesting though. If you asked me now whether I should have become an actual stock broker many years earlier in the 1970's, I'd now say "Sure!" But if you asked me whether I'd like to be a stock broker now, I'd say "No!" Times have changed.



I understand that stock and futures (e.g. commodities) markets are about as pure and efficient markets as can exist. I'm also fully aware that other kinds of selling fall far short of these in terms of purity/efficiency. Unlike you though I find this situation to be sad.

You can't possibly believe that to be true. It is the opposite of sad that a private sale of personal property is not as heavily regulated as the stock market. The last thing we need is more government interference in simple transactions.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

I understand that stock and futures (e.g. commodities) markets are about as pure and efficient markets as can exist. I'm also fully aware that other kinds of selling fall far short of these in terms of purity/efficiency. Unlike you though I find this situation to be sad.

I'm curious. If
1. You had a unique item of a former player, let's say a vintage game used jersey
2. You list it for $1000, then go to a movie
3. When you return home, you have 2 people wanting to buy it. The first, timestamped at 7:30, is an auction house that will buy to flip. The second, timestamped a couple minutes later, is from the player's son. Turns out the player passed away the previous week and the family is in mourning.

Would you hold to your rigid, dogmatic principle of how pure and efficient markets should work (first offer to buy gets the cheese,) or take a more human approach?

[Mark17]

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.]

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

[raulus]

I’m guessing that part of the angst is probably driven by a comparison with eBay.

If I post a piece using the BIN function on eBay, and someone clicks the button to buy it, they can reasonably expect that I’m actually going to sell it to them.

If 30 mins later I get a PM from another buyer offering me more, and I cancel the original transaction, then the original buyer probably has a right to get their dander up.

Now, obviously, the BST here is not eBay. But for some buyers, they might feel like similar principles should apply.

[Fred]

Straight forward scenario/question:

Seller has item for sale in BST.

Buyer A makes the offer to pay asking price and agrees to all ship methods, etc.

Seller sends confirmation the item is sold to Buyer A.

A couple hours later, the seller receives correspondence indicating Buyer B is interested and seller tells Buyer B, "sorry, it's sold". Buyer B ups the offer by 20%. Seller decides they'd want more cash and will take the offer.

QUESTION - How would you feel as Buyer A? I read what the lawyers are writing and the word "contract" comes up. Is there really a legally binding contract based on a couple emails?

In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Fred

Straight forward scenario/question:



Seller has item for sale in BST.



Buyer A makes the offer to pay asking price and agrees to all ship methods, etc.



Seller sends confirmation the item is sold to Buyer A.



A couple hours later, the seller receives correspondence indicating Buyer B is interested and seller tells Buyer B, "sorry, it's sold". Buyer B ups the offer by 20%. Seller decides they'd want more cash and will take the offer.



QUESTION - How would you feel as Buyer A? I read what the lawyers are writing and the word "contract" comes up. Is there really a legally binding contract based on a couple emails?



In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.

Agreement is offer and acceptance. That is a binding contract. A couple emails is more than sufficient evidence that a contract exists. Seller backs out after agreeing to the buyer's offer, it's a breach of that contract. That is different than the scenario in this thread, where the seller never agrees to sell to the buyer.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Agreement is offer and acceptance. That is a binding contract. A couple emails is more than sufficient evidence that a contract exists. Seller backs out after agreeing to the buyer's offer, it's a breach of that contract. That is different than the scenario in this thread, where the seller never agrees to sell to the buyer.

Exactly. Offers and discussions can be made, but when the seller agrees to a deal, that's the end of it.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Fred

Straight forward scenario/question:

Seller has item for sale in BST.

Buyer A makes the offer to pay asking price and agrees to all ship methods, etc.

Seller sends confirmation the item is sold to Buyer A.

A couple hours later, the seller receives correspondence indicating Buyer B is interested and seller tells Buyer B, "sorry, it's sold". Buyer B ups the offer by 20%. Seller decides they'd want more cash and will take the offer.

QUESTION - How would you feel as Buyer A? I read what the lawyers are writing and the word "contract" comes up. Is there really a legally binding contract based on a couple emails?

In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.

I have had this happen as a seller multiple times and buyer A got the card they paid for. I don't remember even having it happen to me as a buyer and I have never offered someone more to sell me a card they had already sold.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by Fred

Straight forward scenario/question:

Seller has item for sale in BST.

Buyer A makes the offer to pay asking price and agrees to all ship methods, etc.

Seller sends confirmation the item is sold to Buyer A.

A couple hours later, the seller receives correspondence indicating Buyer B is interested and seller tells Buyer B, "sorry, it's sold". Buyer B ups the offer by 20%. Seller decides they'd want more cash and will take the offer.

QUESTION - How would you feel as Buyer A? I read what the lawyers are writing and the word "contract" comes up. Is there really a legally binding contract based on a couple emails?

In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.

If a seller did that, then that can eat fecal matter and die as far as I am concerned.

However, none of the deals I personally have been involved in here on net54 have been anywhere like that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

If a seller did that, then that can eat fecal matter and die as far as I am concerned.

However, none of the deals I personally have been involved in here on net54 have been anywhere like that.

Death seems a bit severe for taking a higher offer

[timn1]

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....

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]

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]

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.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

+1

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

Try to play the moral superiority card all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there might be valid reasons why a person might choose to not sell to the first taker, and they shouldn't have to, nor does anyone have the right to question them. Maybe one day when a person who has proven to be a difficult buyer or a scammer is first taker on one of your cards your integrity will be put to the test. Then we'll see how strongly held your pharisaical convictions really are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Try to play the moral superiority card all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there might be valid reasons why a person might choose to not sell to the first taker, and they shouldn't have to, nor does anyone have the right to question them. Maybe one day when a person who has proven to be a difficult buyer or a scammer is first taker on one of your cards your integrity will be put to the test. Then we'll see how strongly held your pharisaical convictions really are.

I've qualified my opinion all along by saying there could be exceptional circumstances. Certainly a scammer would be one of them.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've qualified my opinion all along by saying there could be exceptional circumstances. Certainly a scammer would be one of them.

And I've said that generally speaking, there is no reason not to sell to the first in line.

But do you want to have to publicly answer questions if you do choose to sell to the second person? Should you have to? It seems to put you in a position to exercise LESS etiquette that way, given you might have to say something negative about a person you don't want to deal with, rather than just have it accepted that you have the prerogative to sell to whomever you want. We should all just respect that right, and not demand answers.

[OhioLawyerF5]

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.

[toledo_mudhen]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

Eggs are totally overrated ---- Can take em or leave em

[bk400]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

I didn't bring up Walmart. You did -- to make the point that Walmart is not actually making an offer to customers at the prices listed, but rather inviting customers to make offers to Walmart that Walmart can legally either accept or decline.

I guess your argument is now that Walmart should have a higher duty (beyond that required by the contract principles you cite) because they are in the corporate retail business. And that is distinguishable from a person who posts an advertisement to sell a card on a well known, public internet forum that is viewed by hundreds, if not thousands, of potential buyers on any given day.

That's a much more nuanced argument than the one you seemed to be making before.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bk400

I didn't bring up Walmart. You did -- to make the point that Walmart is not actually making an offer to customers at the prices listed, but rather inviting customers to make offers to Walmart that Walmart can legally either accept or decline.

I guess your argument is now that Walmart should have a higher duty (beyond that required by the contract principles you cite) because they are in the corporate retail business. And that is distinguishable from a person who posts an advertisement to sell a card on a well known, public internet forum that is viewed by hundreds, if not thousands, of potential buyers on any given day.

That's a much more nuanced argument than the one you seemed to be making before.

I brought up Walmart as an example of the principle I was explaining. And the legal principle I set forth applies to them as well. They are not treated differently than anyone else. However, they choose to do things differently for their own reasons, namely the one I gave distinguishing them from a private seller. But that doesn't mean the legal principles don't apply to them.

You are terribly misstating my argument. I never once said Walmart is held to a higher standard. In fact, it's the opposite. I used them as an example because they aren't held to a higher stadard. I distinguished their circumstances because you tried to use them as an example, falsely equating the circumstances and reaction to applying their legal rights. As is clear in this thread, one might choose to forego exercising a legal right they have for various reasons. Walmart, as a large public retailer, has different reasons to forego that right than a private individual selling personal property on an internet message board. If you can't see the distinction, then I don't know what to tell you.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I brought up Walmart as an example of the principle I was explaining. And the legal principle I set forth applies to them as well. They are not treated differently than anyone else. However, they choose to do things differently for their own reasons, namely the one I gave distinguishing them from a private seller. But that doesn't mean the legal principles don't apply to them.

You are terribly misstating my argument. I never once said Walmart is held to a higher standard. In fact, it's the opposite. I used them as an example because they aren't held to a higher stadard. I distinguished their circumstances because you tried to use them as an example, falsely equating the circumstances and reaction to applying their legal rights. As is clear in this thread, one might choose to forego exercising a legal right they have for various reasons. Walmart, as a large public retailer, has different reasons to forego that right than a private individual selling personal property on an internet message board. If you can't see the distinction, then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe I'm slow. Is the distinction then the fact that the sale is being advertised over an internet message board? What if the seller has a one-man, brick and mortar shop, and he's selling the same card. First customer walks in, points to the card in the display case, and says, "I'll take it for the price on the sticker."

We have established that the seller doesn't have a legal obligation to sell anything to the customer. Is it your argument, however, that the seller would be acting in accordance with community standards, if he declines to sell it to that customer, but then sells it instead to the next guy who walks in and also offers to pay the full listed price?

[frankbmd]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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?

Good. An auction is completely different. If anyone backs out of a sale of an auction item here they, at least, won't be able to use the BST areas any longer, if not banned altogether.

[nolemmings]

Hmm,
Seems like there's little to no reason for listing something on B/S/T with a "listening to offers" request when you can easily put whatever number you want and then just change your mind or delay to see if something better comes along. Then again I guess you can do that anyway, even if you start with a defined price. Makes me wonder what is meant by the term etiquette as applied to the net54 "marketplace".

[gregndodgers]

As a lawyer, I stand by my post 100%. As a collector, I stand by Leon 100%.

[JimC]

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?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by JimC

Leon:

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

Yes, at Net54baseball they can do it 1 time, as stated above. In over 20 yrs I don't remember it happening more than maybe a few times in many thousands of transactions (that I know about). So, it's sort of moot but yeah, as I said above, I think everyone gets 1 grace situation where they get buyers or sellers remorse. BUT, I am not a lawyer and this only pertains to the rules on this forum. If there is some law that overrides this, then I guess anyone can sue anyone in the US...I think almost all of us wish, at one time or another, we didn't do a deal we just did. I think it's nice to know you can make a mistake and not be banned. I would like to know about it and think I hear about most of that kind of stuff. A few members have been banned for not following through in situations but those were one-offs.
IF it hasn't happened, consider yourself lucky. And I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to call off a deal. It's not good but not the end of the world.

That said, I keep my word on all of my deals, but I do remember a situation where someone bought something off of my website. It hadn't been updated in a long time and 1 card was way, way off. So yeah, I called that one off as I wasn't going to eat about $7000....

[gunboat82]

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]

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]

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]

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.