APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[oakman29]

You guys make it so hard.Just put in your listing "No PM deals" only.

[vaillant]

Dan's listing, specifically as you have quoted it, directly and explicitly contradicts how you are interpreting it.

 

-J.

 

Since you clearly see people are not agreeing at all on this, you should also see how that formulation is problematic, and thus requires action on the seller‘s part.

If rules are super-clear and require no interpretation, no need of that, but that is not the case.

[vaillant]

You guys make it so hard.Just put in your listing "No PM deals" only.

 

Sure. Either that or update the thread accordingly.

[Jaydogrules]

Jay, I am giving up. It’s not how one "feels", it’s objective: without such measures you just have confusion.

A "quick sale" strategy should not be at the expense of clearness and consistency.

 

It's odd how we are actually agreeing on principal . I just think some people did not like the "style" of dan's listing. But where one prospective buyer was "confused" (trans), another was not (roulette). I don't think anyone is disagreeing that roulette did exactly what the listing said for him to get the book: he posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

-J.

[DR.X]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

[oakman29]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

I'm jealous.I have to go to work.

[DR.X]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

I'm jealous.I have to go to work.

 

 

I'm sure this will still be going on when you get back.

[MCMiles]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

[GAMBIT]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

I'm jealous.I have to go to work.

 

 

I'm sure this will still be going on when you get back.

 

And the outcome will be the same.

 

Only error/fault I see with dams sale is he didn't field his PMs accordingly, especially when in the middle of a 3k+ ongoing deal

 

That and the fact if I went through and bought it outright when I first saw it(and came very close too!) non of this would have happened!

[A.Romeo]

Why would someone step away for 10 minutes in the middle of a negotiation? If i'm negotiating to buy a car I don't just walk away I stay there and work it out. I think this really is on the seller and no fault of either of the buyers. Transplant should have probably posted an I'll take it Via PM just to secure the spot, but I can see where his frustration is coming from.

 

A seller really should think about possible scenarios and consequences of the rules of their thread before making a sales post. If there is a possibility of something like this happening, then you change the rule before you make the post, and if your not smart enough to see what potential outcomes can come from your own rules, then you shouldn't sell.

[DR.X]

Why would someone step away for 10 minutes in the middle of a negotiation?

 

This, especially on a high ticket item.

[jaybuck43]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

[vaillant]

Jay, I am giving up. It’s not how one "feels", it’s objective: without such measures you just have confusion.

A "quick sale" strategy should not be at the expense of clearness and consistency.

 

It's odd how we are actually agreeing on principal . I just think some people did not like the "style" of dan's listing. But where one prospective buyer was "confused" (trans), another was not (roulette). I don't think anyone is disagreeing that roulette did exactly what the listing said for him to get the book: he posted the first "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

-J.

 

Well, he wasn’t confused, he just hoped to get the book a bit discounted, and he made on offer. Not just an hypothetical offer, because he was serious about it, and Dan acknowledged that with a counter-offer, from what I get.

In this case, a communication is due, since you know there is a deal ongoing. If you are not thinking about this, it means you are neglecting the fact that you have an ongoing negotiation, not just an offer.

If we are still here debating, the rules wording was not as clear as it appeared.

[delorean1981]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

 

Nothing like a Saturday morning ride to set the weekend off right. Geez I miss my bike..

[MCMiles]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

[oakman29]

Why would someone step away for 10 minutes in the middle of a negotiation?

 

This, especially on a high ticket item.

 

I'm amazed that people only think about this kind of sheit AFTER it happens.Think ahead with everything you do.

It's just like my pest customers.I tell them that if they leave the back sliding door open,they will have a rat run in."oh no MY dog doesn't like dog doors"

Then they are the first to complain that a rat got in their home.

 

Think things through.

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Glad I'm heading out with some friends on our Harleys in a bit, but I'm sure this will still be going on till the mods hit it with the hook.

Going to pull the rear out of my old mustang so it can towed tomorrow, new shell gets moved over and built the next two weeks. No bikes, but I guess I can deal with an 11 second car for now..

[Old Fashion PB and J]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

I haven't figured this out either.

[romanheart]

If a seller thinks he is not obligated to a deal in a PM before a thread announcement, that is what should be made clear in the initial sale post.

[vaillant]

If a seller thinks he is not obligated to a deal in a PM before a thread announcement, that is what should be made clear in the initial sale post.

 

And I think this pretty much seals the question, from all (or almost all) angles. (thumbs u

 

Hopefully the thread will be precious to word the rules in the most effective way, not those geniuses which go «Usual rules apply. No probies or HoSers, PayPal is OK».