Chris Brogden wrote:
So if we're agreed that "OBO" isn't binding in a legal sense, are you
saying that it should be binding in a moral or ethical sense? Or are you
arguing that "OBO" should not be binding in any way, but that it's
potentially misleading and vague, and that sellers should try and be more
clear?
Chris,
I agree: OBO is not binding, for the simple reason that it is
linguistically and legally impossible to establish when a winner must be
declared.
Is it unethical? Yes, if the intent was to mislead. But from the responses
I'm seeing, that does not appear to be the case.
Is it sometimes frustrating to buyers of good will? Yes.
It seems that Frank, Buckey, and I are nearly alone in understanding OBO to
mean OBO, and not OBRO. But then, we also assume that when a girl said No,
she means No.
-
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 .
