OK. I don't know if this will help, but in the newspaper business in
classifieds, the OBO is pretty much understood to be a REASONABLE offer.
Obviously, if someone has a truck easily worth $5,000 and someone tries to
lowball him with an utterly ridiculous offer of $1,500 hoping the seller is
desperate, the seller will turn it down (probably with extreme prejudice),
as he will sense the potential buyer isn't dealing in good faith. Unless the
price of the vehicle is stated as "$5,000 firm," the potential buyer may
also assume there is some haggle room. Of all the weird complaints we've had
about ads, we've never had one about "OBO."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Frank Theriault wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Sure, but in what time frame? A day? A week? A year? 10 years? If the
> time frame is not specified, then the seller can claim to be waiting for
> all of the offers to come in, can't they?
>
> > 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."
>
> Ok, how about this... I'm selling something for $500 OBO. The top offer
> after a week or two is $50. That's too low, so I decide that I want to
> keep it, and offer myself $60 for it. If owners of corporations can pay
> themselves, why can't I pay myself for the lens?
>
> On a side note, I'm not defending unethical behaviour, as I'm sure anyone
> who's had dealings with me will know. I'm just trying to understand how a
> seemingly innocent phrase like "OBO" can force a seller into a contract
> whereby they *must* sell the item. Who determines the time frame?
>
> 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 .
