B/S/T Etiquette

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

the rules are clear, and here the restatement supports my position.

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

I once had a very irreverent and not very good co counsel on a large case who was fond of saying, case law, cole slaw.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

Ok, a lot late here, but as described, this, at least to me would mean that the law supports shady practices like bait and switch as being entirely legal.

Like "I don't have the $50 sewing machine but I have this one for $75"

One of the events the local K mart had back in the 70's was 7 cent day - or 77 cent day I forget which. Several expensive items advertised at that price. With the catch that only one was at that price. My friend insisted that we should ride our bikes to K mart, because they put pallets of those items on the sidewalk because they didn't want the fights inside.
Total madhouse, I'd guess more inventory was destroyed in the rummage for the one item and subsequent fights than any profit that they might have had. Think like 10 mini riots on the front sidewalk of the store.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by steve B

Ok, a lot late here, but as described, this, at least to me would mean that the law supports shady practices like bait and switch as being entirely legal.

Like "I don't have the $50 sewing machine but I have this one for $75"

One of the events the local K mart had back in the 70's was 7 cent day - or 77 cent day I forget which. Several expensive items advertised at that price. With the catch that only one was at that price. My friend insisted that we should ride our bikes to K mart, because they put pallets of those items on the sidewalk because they didn't want the fights inside.
Total madhouse, I'd guess more inventory was destroyed in the rummage for the one item and subsequent fights than any profit that they might have had. Think like 10 mini riots on the front sidewalk of the store.

Yes Kmart did do 77 cent days, and dollar days as time went on. And yes they did put the pallets on the front sidewalk left and right of the entrance. I got some overnight duty watching those pallets of stuff...complete with bean bag chair, a cooler of food and drinks, etc. But no gun. Not real sure what I would have done to stop anyone from pilfering the goods. No cell phones back in those days. I loved working there, even though the pay wasn't so great, something like $1.75 an hour. But all the dateable girls in the neighborhood worked there, so that more than made up for the low pay!