APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[Speedy-D]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

Speedy- Did you read the thread?

 

Let's say I offer a book at 7 for $90. You PM me offering $70 for it. I say how about $75. You post the take it in the PM at 7:30. I ignore you for 2 hours and then Joe Shmow comes alone and says he'll take it at 9 for the full price.

 

Does that seem right?

That scenario is a bummer though, and it's why, when I sell something via PM, I ask the buyer to either post a in my sales thread, or tell me he doesn't want to and I'll post it myself.

 

And I'm not arguing with RMA, I'm just asking questions.

[Speedy-D]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

[RockMyAmadeus]

If you strike a deal with someone, it's a deal.

 

If you say "I'll take this price", and the buyer says "ok, I accept that price", all prior to the public posting of the take it emoticon, the deal is done. You have just struck a deal in writing. There were, apparently, no terms that said "I'll take this price and you'll have to post the take it emoticon in the thread before anyone else, or the deal is not final", which would have been consistent with your rules.

 

If someone says "ok, I accept that price" AFTER someone in the thread posts it, fine, that's the way it works, that guy loses. But that doesn't look like this happened here.

 

And this is not personal, Dan, so don't take it personally. Many people stood behind you in the JIM #83 scandal, because you were in the right.

 

In this case, you're not. Your rules may be your rules, but they are bad rules, which lead to confusion, as evidenced here.

 

And by the way...if someone strikes a deal with someone, especially in writing, and they renege, for whatever reason...that's breach of contract, and you can face litigation. I seriously doubt that will happen, but it can, and Tranny would be correct.

His stating ":takeit: IN the thread trumps any and ALL PM's" doesn't hold any water?

 

I already explained that: no, because Dan acted contrary to his own rules. If he meant what he said, he should have clearly told Transplant in the negotiation that, according to his own rules, the deal isn't complete until he posts the take it emoticon in the thread, prior to anyone else posting it.

 

By not mentioning that in the negotiations, and making Tranny an offer without re-stating his terms, Dan didn't follow his own rules. If it was that important, it should have been explicitly stated, in writing, during the negotiation in private.

 

Transplant clearly thought he had negotiated a done deal, only to have it pulled out from under him. There was clearly a "meeting of the minds", which is the heart of a valid contract.

But if he said it in his rules first post, where rules are always listed, why isn't that enough? He also talks about shipping costs and acceptable payment methods in his original post. Does he have to reiterate those as well via PM, to keep them applicable?

 

Because Dan changed the terms of the sale in negotiation.

 

That's why.

 

"I'll take this." "Ok, I accept that price."

 

Deal struck.

 

It wasn't "I'll take this, and you'll have to post take it in the thread before anyone else", or Tranny would have understood that the deal wasn't done UNTIL he fulfilled ALL the terms of the sale.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations, whether he knew it or not, by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms.

 

[Speedy-D]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms, whether he knew it or not.

Dude, you can't keep changing your position on this!!!

[Jaydogrules]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms, whether he knew it or not.

Dude, you can't keep changing your position on this!!!

 

I don't know what you're referring to, my position has been static the entire time.

[Speedy-D]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms, whether he knew it or not.

Dude, you can't keep changing your position on this!!!

 

I don't know what you're referring to, my position has been static the entire time.

I know, I'm kidding.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL".

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

So let's say you and I agree to terms in PM. I leave my sales thread going for a few days and someone comes along and takes it at full price (you got a $10 discount). I go ahead and defer to the new deal.

 

You'd be OK with that?

[Speedy-D]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms, whether he knew it or not.

Dude, you can't keep changing your position on this!!!

 

I don't know what you're referring to, my position has been static the entire time.

I know, I'm kidding.

I was referring to the fact that I keep making you say the same thing...

[Spider-Dan]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL".

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

So let's say you and I agree to terms in PM. I leave my sales thread going for a few days and someone comes along and takes it at full price (you got a $10 discount). I go ahead and defer to the new deal.

 

You'd be OK with that?

 

It wasn't a few days. And we both stepped away for a few minutes. Apples and Oranges

[jaybuck43]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

[RockMyAmadeus]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL". There was no need for him to "reiterate" his rules again in a PM, they were already there, plain as day in his listing.

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

Sorry, but that's not how contract law works. You are making assumptions. The rules themselves were not confusing...it was Dan's failure to follow his rules that led to the confusion.

 

I'm not quite sure why you don't understand what negotiations are.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

[Jaydogrules]

If transplant thought he had a deal in place he should have posted the "I'll take it" in the thread, per PM. Instead, he waited until AFTER roulette put up the unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread.

 

The seller's rules were crystal clear, they were not confusing in the least. He specifically said first "I'll take it" in thread trumps ALL PM's. He even made a point to emphasize "ALL".

 

It's great he's being a stand up guy with the other prospective seller, trying not to burn any bridges, but per the explicit rules of his thread, he made the correct decision. I feel for the other buyer, but it really was the right decision.

 

-J.

 

So let's say you and I agree to terms in PM. I leave my sales thread going for a few days and someone comes along and takes it at full price (you got a $10 discount). I go ahead and defer to the new deal.

 

You'd be OK with that?

 

I would have adhered to the listing rules and posted the "I'll take it" and then gone about my day. If someone beat me to it even by seconds I would have had to accept that I missed out. If am haggling back and forth in a PM and another guy beats me with an unconditional "I'll take it" in the thread, that's that. You win some you lose some. The seller was not remotely vague about what trumped what.

 

 

-J.

[RockMyAmadeus]

In other words, in contract law, you can have whatever terms you want, provided they A. don't contradict other terms, and B. are allowed by law...but you have to follow them, too.

 

For instance, you can't post a sign that says "I will sell you these magic beans for $4, provided you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head" and then say to a prospective buyer who says "will you take $3?", you say "No, but I'll take $3.50" without also stating "and you'll still have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, backwards, standing on your head."

 

Otherwise, you've changed your terms.

O yeah? That's interesting. I would have assumed all other stipulations would still apply, but what do I know?

 

Dan himself cancelled those stipulations by making an offer to Tranny that did not include the original terms, whether he knew it or not.

Dude, you can't keep changing your position on this!!!

 

I don't know what you're referring to, my position has been static the entire time.

I know, I'm kidding.

I was referring to the fact that I keep making you say the same thing...

 

[AlexanderM]

Dan's decision seems fair. The first open "Ill take it" should get it.

[porcupine48]

Static.

Great word.

Also,guffaw has been a good one of late.Not at you Rock,at the whole Iron Man Daredevil situation this week.

[Bio-Rupp]

Dan stated something in one of his responses that everyone needs to put in their sales listings...

 

"MY SALES THREAD... MY RULES"

 

That should end multiple threads of endless debate over who is perceived as right and who is perceived as wrong.

[porcupine48]

That's cool. Sadly, this thread will probably go into an ADHD, Ridalin-fueled Friday freak out - but for the record: I give Spider-Dan a (thumbs u for speaking out.

Indeed.Very gentlemanly.