APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

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

 

Then he shouldn't have made an ambiguous offer to Transplant.

[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 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.

 

 

I work with contracts all day actually. The seller saying first "I'll take it in thread trumps ALL PM's" is only unclear for those who are unable to be impartial for some reason. Sellers put that in their listing for the sole reason to deter PM haggling. Even if Dan had an agreement in principal with the other buyer, the buyer should have posted the "I'll take it". But he didn't until after roulette did. How was Dan to know that buyer was going to perform ? He didn't post the "I'll take it". For all Dan knows the buyer might be having second thoughts or getting cold feet. Roulette stepped in and gave an unconditional "I'll take it" and it beat the other buyer. Per the rules of the listing roulette wins.

 

-J.

[HighRadArt]

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.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

[jaybuck43]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

Because at least under New York law (where I practice) your interpretation of basic contract law is flawed. Just because transplant dickered over a term in the contract (in this case the price) it does not fundamentally change the terms of the rest of the contract (I.e. its not suddenly also a new shipping/payment/acceptance terms) he still had to be the first :take it: in thread. Also there are decades of case law dealing with this (usually with phone call versus mail acceptance of a contract)

Was curious what state you practiced in that differed since I haven't found one yet.

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Sorry, Rupp, but that's not how it works.

 

If you said "MY SALES THREAD...MY RULES...AND I SAY YOU HAVE TO ROB A BANK TO PAY FOR THIS ITEM", then your "rules" are invalid.

 

 

[VintageComics]

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

 

Then he shouldn't have made an ambiguous offer to Transplant.

 

Dan probably didn't assume a mix-up to happen and assumed Mike would immediately post an in the thread.

 

I agree that the wording Dan uses makes things complicated, but only because people don't understand that he literally means an unconditional in the thread will trump all else...and that is where the problem is.

 

I agree with many (most?) that a 'timestamp' clause - first one gets it - is the best way to avoid misunderstandings.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

 

Sorry, Rupp, but that's not how it works.

 

If you said "MY SALES THREAD...MY RULES...AND I SAY YOU HAVE TO ROB A BANK TO PAY FOR THIS ITEM", then your "rules" are invalid.

 

 

That's not what was said. Just like I tell my kids "Let's not play the WHAT IF game" Just stick to what happened. You can what if this and what if that all day.

[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.

 

Sorry, Rupp, but that's not how it works.

 

If you said "MY SALES THREAD...MY RULES...AND I SAY YOU HAVE TO ROB A BANK TO PAY FOR THIS ITEM", then your "rules" are invalid.

 

 

Once you stop thinking of this as the New York Stock Exchange where the owners there actually care about sales interactions and have posted rules and laws of buying and selling... and remember this is basically a "no fee, garage sale area" for us to sell comic books... then get back to me.

 

Till then, put me back on ignore and continue your bath salt, induced interpretations of how everything works

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

Because at least under New York law (where I practice) your interpretation of basic contract law is flawed. Just because transplant dickered over a term in the contract (in this case the price) it does not fundamentally change the terms of the rest of the contract (I.e. its not suddenly also a new shipping/payment/acceptance terms) he still had to be the first :take it: in thread. Also there are decades of case law dealing with this (usually with phone call versus mail acceptance of a contract)

Was curious what state you practiced in that differed since I haven't found one yet.

 

All true...however, that's not what happened here. Dan did not follow his own terms. He accepted an offer without stipulating that said offer was not valid until and unless the take it emoticon was posted in the thread.

 

He contradicted his own terms, and that's where the problem lies.

 

 

 

 

[AndyBoBo]

Was the mailbox rule just cited in Comics General?

[DiceX]

I'd like to apologize to Transplant for calling him Jethro a few times.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

Sorry, Rupp, but that's not how it works.

 

If you said "MY SALES THREAD...MY RULES...AND I SAY YOU HAVE TO ROB A BANK TO PAY FOR THIS ITEM", then your "rules" are invalid.

 

 

Once you stop thinking of this as the New York Stock Exchange where the owners there actually care about sales interactions and have posted rules and laws of buying and selling... and then remember this is basically a "no fee, garage sale area" for us to sell comic books... then get back to me.

 

Till then, put me back on ignore and continue your bath salt, induced interpretations of how everything works

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

I know you need to be insulting to those who disagree with you, but if you're going to refer to me and what I said, I'm perfectly free to respond. If you say something that is contrary to basic logic and common sense, I'll respond with basic logic and common sense.

 

And one of those is you can't say "MY THREAD, MY RULES" if those rules are contrary to the law, for example.

 

If you can't respond without being insulting, the problem lies with you.

 

[Spider-Dan]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

Because at least under New York law (where I practice) your interpretation of basic contract law is flawed. Just because transplant dickered over a term in the contract (in this case the price) it does not fundamentally change the terms of the rest of the contract (I.e. its not suddenly also a new shipping/payment/acceptance terms) he still had to be the first :take it: in thread. Also there are decades of case law dealing with this (usually with phone call versus mail acceptance of a contract)

Was curious what state you practiced in that differed since I haven't found one yet.

 

All true...however, that's not what happened here. Dan did not follow his own terms. He accepted an offer without stipulating that said offer was not valid until and unless the take it emoticon was posted in the thread.

 

He contradicted his own terms, and that's where the problem lies.

 

 

 

 

Mike accepted MY counter and everything got posted BEFORE I read it, therefore I did NOT contradict my own terms

[porcupine48]

[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.

 

 

This sounds like the old RMA. Telling people what they should think.

 

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware you had an issue with me.

 

I have told no one "what they should think." I'm pretty sure I have never "told people what they should think."

 

If you have a countering view, by all means, post it, and let everyone else decide for themselves which argument holds up better. That is the very opposite of "telling people what they should think."

 

Very disappointing.

 

 

[Spider-Dan]

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.

 

Sorry, Rupp, but that's not how it works.

 

If you said "MY SALES THREAD...MY RULES...AND I SAY YOU HAVE TO ROB A BANK TO PAY FOR THIS ITEM", then your "rules" are invalid.

 

 

Once you stop thinking of this as the New York Stock Exchange where the owners there actually care about sales interactions and have posted rules and laws of buying and selling... and then remember this is basically a "no fee, garage sale area" for us to sell comic books... then get back to me.

 

Till then, put me back on ignore and continue your bath salt, induced interpretations of how everything works

 

xxx ooo

 

Rupp

 

I know you need to be insulting to those who disagree with you, but if you're going to refer to me and what I said, I'm perfectly free to respond. If you say something that is contrary to basic logic and common sense, I'll respond with basic logic and common sense.

 

And one of those is you can't say "MY THREAD, MY RULES" if those rules are contrary to the law, for example.

 

If you can't respond without being insulting, the problem lies with you.

 

Just to be clear - the MY THREAD, MY RULES was not posted IN the sales thread. That was in the other thread where my character was being questioned

[jaybuck43]

I try to work it into every conversation I can

[porcupine48]

Okay,I've got to walk the dog....everyone hold on for about twenty five minutes...

[PIR8]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

Because at least under New York law (where I practice) your interpretation of basic contract law is flawed. Just because transplant dickered over a term in the contract (in this case the price) it does not fundamentally change the terms of the rest of the contract (I.e. its not suddenly also a new shipping/payment/acceptance terms) he still had to be the first :take it: in thread. Also there are decades of case law dealing with this (usually with phone call versus mail acceptance of a contract)

Was curious what state you practiced in that differed since I haven't found one yet.

 

All true...however, that's not what happened here. Dan did not follow his own terms. He accepted an offer without stipulating that said offer was not valid until and unless the take it emoticon was posted in the thread.

 

He contradicted his own terms, and that's where the problem lies.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how he contradicted himself. He never said you couldn't negotiate via PM for a better price, only that the sale wasn't final until the "take it" was posted.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

RMA just curious what state do you practice law in?

 

None. Why?

Because at least under New York law (where I practice) your interpretation of basic contract law is flawed. Just because transplant dickered over a term in the contract (in this case the price) it does not fundamentally change the terms of the rest of the contract (I.e. its not suddenly also a new shipping/payment/acceptance terms) he still had to be the first :take it: in thread. Also there are decades of case law dealing with this (usually with phone call versus mail acceptance of a contract)

Was curious what state you practiced in that differed since I haven't found one yet.

 

All true...however, that's not what happened here. Dan did not follow his own terms. He accepted an offer without stipulating that said offer was not valid until and unless the take it emoticon was posted in the thread.

 

He contradicted his own terms, and that's where the problem lies.

 

 

 

 

Mike accepted MY counter and everything got posted BEFORE I read it, therefore I did NOT contradict my own terms

 

Yes, you did. You made him an offer, and he accepted.

 

Deal struck.

 

You did not make a counter which included the requirement to post take it before the deal was valid.

 

And that's why we're here.

 

The very fact that he thought there was a deal, and didn't think he had to post take it before it was final, is the proof of that.