B/S/T Etiquette

[ALBB]

Lets take it to a higher court

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Lets take it to a higher court

It's already been in the highest court. I cited those cases. He chooses to ignore them.

[Republicaninmass]

I'm looking for an invitation to trick or treat.

Mr October

[brunswickreeves]

Time for a card? Old Judge King Kelly! (Not mine, just a a quip based on discussion direction of this thread).

[bk400]

I've been looking for an excuse to post this bad boy!

[gregndodgers]

I have laid out my reasons for why it is my opinion that the seller here was making an offer to sell and not an invitation to treat (I.e. invitation to enter negotiations that could lead to a future sale). I will let the reader decide which position is correct, but in my mind, it is clear that the seller was making an offer that could be accepted by anyone who simply said “I will take it,” or something to that effect.

So the seller was making an offer here and not an invitation to treat. We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

But you could maybe point to a single case to support your point.

And interstingly, the "reasons" you laid out didn't address any of the actual legal authority I laid out for why your opinion is wrong. You conveniently ignore it, and post the completely wrong section of the Restatement on Contracts to support your position. All we got from you was "Trust me, I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts." (Which if it matters, I work on multi-million dollar contracts on a daily basis myself). That appeal to authority is comical, because it doesn't show you know more about this situation. It shows you are out of touch with how courts deal with informal agreements made over the internet, because you spend your time dealing with contracts that tend to have significantly more formalities involved.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Apologies if this scenario was raised. If a guy has a card stickered on a table at a card show, and I walk up and say I'll take it, do we have a binding contract? Uh.... no.

I read some of the case law. It completely reinforced my prior understanding. It seems clear that absent unusual language or circumstances, an "offer" to the public not made to a specific individual -- such as an advertisement, display, catalog, price list, etc. -- is uniformly considered an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The cases matter a GREAT deal.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

But you could maybe point to a single case to support your point.

And interstingly, the "reasons" you laid out didn't address any of the actual legal authority I laid out for why your opinion is wrong. You conveniently ignore it, and post the completely wrong section of the Restatement on Contracts to support your position. All we got from you was "Trust me, I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts." (Which if it matters, I work on multi-million dollar contracts on a daily basis myself). That appeal to authority is comical, because it doesn't show you know more about this situation. It shows you are out of touch with how courts deal with informal agreements made over the internet, because you spend your time dealing with contracts that tend to have significantly more formalities involved.

I’ve won many cases in court without citing to case law. It’s not necessary when the rules are clear, and here the restatement supports my position. Also those cases you cited in support of your position are not on point AND they are from ENGLAND. Can you cite any U.S. cases that are on point? Doubtful. The reason is that this area of the law is not difficult.

What constitutes an “offer” in contracts is not one of the more difficult concepts to learn, but you seem to be struggling with it counselor.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I have laid out my reasons for why it is my opinion that the seller here was making an offer to sell and not an invitation to treat (I.e. invitation to enter negotiations that could lead to a future sale). I will let the reader decide which position is correct, but in my mind, it is clear that the seller was making an offer that could be accepted by anyone who simply said “I will take it,” or something to that effect.

So the seller was making an offer here and not an invitation to treat. We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

Greg asked me to chime in again as this thread has gone in a few directions haha. Just to confirm again the original post and confirmed by the buyer of the cards. I sold the cards to the first person who dm’d me which was half hour before Phil posted and dm’d me with an offer. Cut and dry clear as day I gave it to the first person who asked. I know the rest of the thread is different scenarios but wanted to bring this up again. And Phil disappointed that you haven’t come back here to apologize after starting this thread but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Greg asked me to chime in again as this thread has gone in a few directions haha. Just to confirm again the original post and confirmed by the buyer of the cards. I sold the cards to the first person who dm’d me which was half hour before Phil posted and dm’d me with an offer. Cut and dry clear as day I gave it to the first person who asked. I know the rest of the thread is different scenarios but wanted to bring this up again. And Phil disappointed that you haven’t come back here to apologize after starting this thread but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, and your post had a listed price, all the essential terms such that anyone who said “I will take them” would seal the deal. Hence no negations were needed nor contemplated.

Folks, an offer was made here not an invitation to treat for purposes of future negotiations.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

Time for a card? Old Judge King Kelly!

Whoa, nice one!

[jayshum]

Time for another Judge's ruling on this case