This is just plain silly. Placing an ad in the paper, etc. doesn't force
anyone to sell anything. The person selling can withdraw the item for sale
at any time - and what is a buyer going to do about it? Even on eBay a
seller can cancel all the bids and terminate any active item listed for
whatever reason he wants, only after the auction ends does it turn into a
contract where the seller has to sell the item at the final bid (assuming
the reserve is met if there is one)
Todd
At 10:17 PM 4/23/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi, Chris,
>
>Having re-read your post, I see what you're saying. If you're selling a
(let's say)
>lens for "$500 obo", and I offer $50, you can say, "well, I acknowledge
your offer,
>but since I didn't say "$500 obo before April 30, I'm going to wait for a
better
>offer".
>
>To an extent, you're right, but I don't think that "clears the vendor of
legal
>responsibility". If no one else "bids" on it, the vendor can't simply
withdraw the
>offer, once the offer is accepted by someone (in this case, me). If no
time limit
>is set, the vendor can wait, but at some point, I, as seller, can say,
"okay, a
>reasonable time period has passed, you have no other offers, I want the
lens for the
>$50".
>
>The question, of course, is: "What is a reasonable time period"? That,
for better
>or worse, is what mediators, arbitrators, and ultimately, courts are for.
>
>Of course, in the real world, I'm not going to take you to court to
enforce a $50
>contract. But it sure wouldn't stop me from thinking that the vendor is a
real
>sleaze-ball (not you of course - I'd never think that!)
>
>But then, being a reasonably intelligent person, and an honourable and astute
>businessman, you'd never make such an open-ended offer, would you? ;-)
>
>regards,
>frank
>
>Frank Theriault wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I haven't been following this thread, so maybe I'm missing something here.
>>
>> Trying to remember what little I know of Contract Law, it seems to me
that the
>> vendor is extending a Unilateral Contract to the world. If all he/she
says is
>> "or best offer", then I think he would be bound to sell to the person
who makes
>> the best offer - reasonable or not. There is a rule called "contra
proferentum"
>> (excuse the spelling) which states that a contract (especially a
commercial one)
>> will always be interpreted strictly against the drafter of the contract
(in this
>> case, the vendor). If he wanted it to be "best reasonable offer"
(meaning that
>> he would be the determiner of "reasonable"), then he should have said
that. If
>> he didn't want to sell the item for under $500, then he should have said
"best
>> offer over $500".
>>
>> You can't just go around making reckless statements, and then say, "oops, I
>> didn't really mean that."
>>
>> regards,
>> frank
>>
>> Chris Brogden wrote:
>>
>> > Just to clarify it a bit more, it sounds like you're saying that if an
>> > offer of $50 is the highest offer a seller receives on a $500 item, then
>> > the seller should sell it for that price because "OBO" is
>> > unconditional. Is that a correct assumption on my part? I don't think
>> > that's fair to the seller, and I think the fact that they didn't
specify a
>> > time frame clears them of any legal responsibility.
>> >
>> > chris
>> >
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
