• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

General discussion thread - keep the other threads clean
29 29

Started by Transplant,

35,153 posts in this topic

EC ed

EC ed

Posted
Posted
Is that actually binding?

Interesting question...I had a similar nagging thought. I think wipple has a case he could argue should he choose to do so, but having said that, I think this structure indeed introduces some grey area into the situation. Also, I must admit that generally I'm not a fan of the "I'll take it if he passes" type of post, although it's tough to put a finger on why it bothers me...maybe it seems too close to a 'pre-emption'...the book isn't actually technically for sale again until the first "contingent" buyer officially passes, so can it be taken by a second buyer before that happens?... hm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hado

Hado

Posted
Posted
Is that actually binding?

Interesting question...I had a similar nagging thought. I think wipple has a case he could argue should he choose to do so, but having said that, I think this structure indeed introduces some grey area into the situation. Also, I must admit that generally I'm not a fan of the "I'll take it if he passes" type of post, although it's tough to put a finger on why it bothers me...maybe it seems too close to a 'pre-emption'...the book isn't actually technically for sale again until the first "contingent" buyer officially passes, so can it be taken by a second buyer before that happens?... hm

What would your opinion be if the roll's were reversed and once the initial deal was passed on, would the seller be able to uphold the :take it if he passes:?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarveySwick

HarveySwick

Posted
Posted

Ok. So, I'm going back through the probation discussions and adding links to the list. Someone proposed it and I think it's such a great idea! But I need help because, well, this sucks. :P:tonofbricks:

 

Does anyone want to volunteer? I mean, even if a few people took 5 - 10 names on the PL = (worship)

 

I'm working on the HOS list. Any takers for the PL section? :foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HarveySwick

HarveySwick

Posted
Posted

:foryou:

 

I just bumped the actual List. You can see which ones are missing right now - just quote it to see the format. I just used the existing format.

 

I would name which ones you will search for here so we don't have people wasting time doing a duplicate search.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaybuck43

jaybuck43

Posted
Posted
Is that actually binding?

Interesting question...I had a similar nagging thought. I think wipple has a case he could argue should he choose to do so, but having said that, I think this structure indeed introduces some grey area into the situation. Also, I must admit that generally I'm not a fan of the "I'll take it if he passes" type of post, although it's tough to put a finger on why it bothers me...maybe it seems too close to a 'pre-emption'...the book isn't actually technically for sale again until the first "contingent" buyer officially passes, so can it be taken by a second buyer before that happens?... hm

What would your opinion be if the roll's were reversed and once the initial deal was passed on, would the seller be able to uphold the :take it if he passes:?

Gonna throw the lawyer hat on, sorry. So what we are basically discussing here is an illusory promise/contract. Wipples assent to the contract is conditioned on an outside source passing on it. Neither party to the contract can control that decision. If I was arguing wipples side my argument is that even though the agreement is illusory it was made in good faith, the terms were definite and there was a loosely defined timeline (tied to one party of the contract posting pics) and yes if the rolls were reversed if argue that bryan could inforce against wipple because they had an agreement and he threw an unconditional take it. So if gambit passed wipple had to buy it. Just my 2c comix4fun destroy me from the other side of the aisle please :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hado

Hado

Posted
Posted
Is that actually binding?

Interesting question...I had a similar nagging thought. I think wipple has a case he could argue should he choose to do so, but having said that, I think this structure indeed introduces some grey area into the situation. Also, I must admit that generally I'm not a fan of the "I'll take it if he passes" type of post, although it's tough to put a finger on why it bothers me...maybe it seems too close to a 'pre-emption'...the book isn't actually technically for sale again until the first "contingent" buyer officially passes, so can it be taken by a second buyer before that happens?... hm

What would your opinion be if the roll's were reversed and once the initial deal was passed on, would the seller be able to uphold the :take it if he passes:?

Gonna throw the lawyer hat on, sorry. So what we are basically discussing here is an illusory promise/contract. Wipples assent to the contract is conditioned on an outside source passing on it. Neither party to the contract can control that decision. If I was arguing wipples side my argument is that even though the agreement is illusory it was made in good faith, the terms were definite and there was a loosely defined timeline (tied to one party of the contract posting pics) and yes if the rolls were reversed if argue that bryan could inforce against wipple because they had an agreement and he threw an unconditional take it. So if gambit passed wipple had to buy it. Just my 2c comix4fun destroy me from the other side of the aisle please :-)

I think that answers my question @______@

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bababooey

bababooey

Posted
Posted
Is that actually binding?

Interesting question...I had a similar nagging thought. I think wipple has a case he could argue should he choose to do so, but having said that, I think this structure indeed introduces some grey area into the situation. Also, I must admit that generally I'm not a fan of the "I'll take it if he passes" type of post, although it's tough to put a finger on why it bothers me...maybe it seems too close to a 'pre-emption'...the book isn't actually technically for sale again until the first "contingent" buyer officially passes, so can it be taken by a second buyer before that happens?... hm

What would your opinion be if the roll's were reversed and once the initial deal was passed on, would the seller be able to uphold the :take it if he passes:?

Gonna throw the lawyer hat on, sorry. So what we are basically discussing here is an illusory promise/contract. Wipples assent to the contract is conditioned on an outside source passing on it. Neither party to the contract can control that decision. If I was arguing wipples side my argument is that even though the agreement is illusory it was made in good faith, the terms were definite and there was a loosely defined timeline (tied to one party of the contract posting pics) and yes if the rolls were reversed if argue that bryan could inforce against wipple because they had an agreement and he threw an unconditional take it. So if gambit passed wipple had to buy it. Just my 2c comix4fun destroy me from the other side of the aisle please :-)

I think that answers my question @______@

 

lol

In that thread you could argue that since the seller said "First :takeit: wins" would be an indication that subsequent "takeits" aren't binding.

 

It's nit-picky & I don't think that was the intention in this situation but an argument could be made. (shrug)

 

Threads without pics are trouble for this place...but if they're going to continue for the stuff that doesn't need to be sold like this (modern con pre-sales) then a seller should clarify if they accept "pending pics" or want unconditional to trump.

 

2c

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bababooey

bababooey

Posted
Posted
In the situation at hand the seller said :takeit: pending pics was acceptable so the seller opened themselves up to this.

 

Accepting conditionals does make you more likely to see subsequent :takeit: in the thread but it doesn't change the fact that he says "First :takeit: wins " which means that "you could argue" that he is compelled to re-list the item as available to get a new "first" one. (which I think was Ed's point)

 

His acceptance of "pending" only puts conditional & unconditional on equal footing for time-stamps; his acceptance of conditionals increases his likelihood of having a secondary buyer but it doesn't negate his "first" stipulation.

 

:acclaim:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
Just an observation, similar to ones others have made about other cases: To the extent that people actually read the Probation Thread -- which is, admittedly, probably limited -- why would a seller want to broadcast widely to potential buyers that he intends to hound a buyer who wants to back out of a deal when a book turns out to have an undisclosed defect?

 

It appears as if the seller got what we wanted by using the threat of adding the buyer to the PL, but I have a suspicion that more people reading about that incident are going to think "No way in hell I would buy a book from this seller" than would think "No way in hell I will sell a book to this buyer."

 

I would think a guy who is a pretty active seller on the boards would value his reputation more than the few extra thousands he extracted from the buyer as a result of bringing this issue to the Probation Thread.

 

But as usual, maybe I just don't know nuttin'! :D

 

I think you do know a thing or two.

 

+1

 

+2

 

Is this the same seller that has an active WTB thread and a sales thread for the same book??

Link to comment
Share on other sites
joecgcmaniac

joecgcmaniac

Posted
Posted
Just an observation, similar to ones others have made about other cases: To the extent that people actually read the Probation Thread -- which is, admittedly, probably limited -- why would a seller want to broadcast widely to potential buyers that he intends to hound a buyer who wants to back out of a deal when a book turns out to have an undisclosed defect?

 

It appears as if the seller got what we wanted by using the threat of adding the buyer to the PL, but I have a suspicion that more people reading about that incident are going to think "No way in hell I would buy a book from this seller" than would think "No way in hell I will sell a book to this buyer."

 

I would think a guy who is a pretty active seller on the boards would value his reputation more than the few extra thousands he extracted from the buyer as a result of bringing this issue to the Probation Thread.

 

But as usual, maybe I just don't know nuttin'! :D

 

I think you do know a thing or two.

 

+1

 

+2

 

Is this the same seller that has an active WTB thread and a sales thread for the same book??

 

^^

 

And who doesn't take back books graded by "third-party" graders. That stance alone may cost him more customers than he'll ever know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
N/A

N/A

Posted
Posted
Just an observation, similar to ones others have made about other cases: To the extent that people actually read the Probation Thread -- which is, admittedly, probably limited -- why would a seller want to broadcast widely to potential buyers that he intends to hound a buyer who wants to back out of a deal when a book turns out to have an undisclosed defect?

 

It appears as if the seller got what we wanted by using the threat of adding the buyer to the PL, but I have a suspicion that more people reading about that incident are going to think "No way in hell I would buy a book from this seller" than would think "No way in hell I will sell a book to this buyer."

 

I would think a guy who is a pretty active seller on the boards would value his reputation more than the few extra thousands he extracted from the buyer as a result of bringing this issue to the Probation Thread.

 

But as usual, maybe I just don't know nuttin'! :D

 

I think you do know a thing or two.

 

+1

 

+2

 

Is this the same seller that has an active WTB thread and a sales thread for the same book??

 

^^

 

And who doesn't take back books graded by "third-party" graders. That stance alone may cost him more customers than he'll ever know.

 

Next HOS candidate. Calling it now. :ohnoez:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
29 29
Go to topic listing