If it was one of my brothers, they would probably
double the price :)
BTW I am adding an OT which you seem to have all
forgotten.
Jody.
Yes: If he doesn't like the best offer, the seller
can refuse to sell.
That's precisely my point, Chris: It's a hollow
promise. Heck, if he
doesn't want
Heyy, think it's time to change the subject. When
I say no, I always mean no (I'm a hard woman).
Paul S-y wrote:
But then, we also assume that when a girl said No,
she means No.
I n e v e r assume a girl means No, no matter what
she says...
Lasse
petit miam wrote:
Heyy, think it's time to change the subject. When
I say no, I always mean no (I'm a hard woman).
Ah, I still don't believe you.
Bob
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is hypocritical. If you are going to argue on ethical grounds that
it's unfair to extend the auction (even though the seller has that
right), then you have to admit that it's
also unfair for the buyer to try and force the seller to sell it for
Hell yeah youz ken force hem to do sumpin! Greb hem by ther back of ther nek und
slem hiz hed inter the hood of da truck!
Billy Ray
aimcompute wrote:
I don't think you can force the seller to do anything. It's his property,
his sale, his terms. If you don't want it or are not happy about
I don't think you can force the seller to do anything. It's his property,
his sale, his terms. If you don't want it or are not happy about it, you
just don't buy it.
If I had an item to sell and a prospective buyer tried to strong-arm me, I'd
tell him to take a hike.
I realize this thread had
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is hypocritical. If you are going to argue on ethical grounds that
it's unfair to extend the auction (even though the seller has that
right), then you have to admit that it's
also unfair for the buyer to try and force the seller to sell it
-trivial way) upon building it, the offer is deemed
accepted and I would be bound.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Chris Brogden
Sent: April 23, 2001 10:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Hi, Todd,
I don't think this is silly at all!
Many people on this list buy and sell stuff on eBay and to and
from others on this
list all the time, and I think it's a good thing for folks to
know their rights
Yes, that is silly.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Smith
Sent: April 24, 2001 1:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
I think the silliness Todd was referring
Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
If you read what you wrote, there is an implied contract in
force once you say you will pay me $100 and you let me start
building the dog house. OTOH, if you offer me the $100 and I
come back next week and say I accept your offer, you can say
you changed
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
If there is such a thing as a unilateral contract, it can
also be withdrawn unilaterally, so is not a binding contract
at all. I use this concept for my model releases. The
subject grants me permission to use their likeness
Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
Remember, money isn't always involved.
Say a guy has a motor cycle for sale $800 or OBO
you come by and show him a laptop you'll trade for the motorcycle, and he
say ok
I've know people who have traded computer for used cars!
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To
Yes: If he doesn't like the best offer, the seller can refuse to sell.
That's precisely my point, Chris: It's a hollow promise. Heck, if he
doesn't want to accept my $100 offer, he can sell it to his brother for
$110, then buy it right back. That's one facet of what shilling is about,
and it's
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse
Sent: April 23, 2001 11:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
If there is such a thing as a unilateral contract, it can
also
Where do you want me to stick it? :-)
BTW, I didn't mention the travel expenses... lodging, car rental, per
diem...
Tom C.
Is that a hundred bucks US? Or will Can$s work for you. I have 2
pretty big dogs, I am thinking a 5x7 foot dog house, with a nice
cottage style roof. It gets cold
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes: If he doesn't like the best offer, the seller can refuse to sell.
That's precisely my point, Chris: It's a hollow promise. Heck, if he
doesn't want to accept my $100 offer, he can sell it to his brother for
$110, then buy it right back.
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a humorous note, several years ago there was an American television
commercial in which a grown man was serving as a slave to his friend
because as a youngster he had bet his friend a million dollar that a
certain sports team would win the
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just don't get it, guys. Why does everyone respect the sensible EBay
selling paradigm--set a minimum or don't complain or reneg if you fail to
get it--but feel that this approach is inappropriate for a non-EBay
classified ad?
Maybe because eBay
I'm glad you noted the smiley, Mark.
For the record:
In language theory, there are two kinds of OR:
1. exclusive, or alternative:
Do you prefer Nikon cameras or Pentax?
Shall I torture you, or will you reveal the code?
Coffee, tea, or milk?
2. includive, or Boolean: Find every web page
- Original Message -
From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2001 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Where do you want me to stick it? :-)
BTW, I didn't mention the travel expenses... lodging, car
rental, per
- Original Message -
From: Tom Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Well, he made one of those unilateral contracts with you
didn't he? I think you made my point exactly, Bill
Private sales don't have rules? The more's the pity. Time was, a handshake
was binding, and an oral agreement was not dismissed for want of a piece of
paper.
My teenage son in Israel has spent the past year studying the Talmudic
tractate that deals with personal business agreements: I agree to
GUARANTEE your dogs'll die of old age before a resolution is reached.
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
- Original Message
In the 1980s, here in the United States, a man placed his Mercedes-Benz for
sale. An attractive woman was interested, and they struck an unusual deal:
If she agreed to sleep with him 100 times, the Mercedes would be hers.
Perhaps she felt ashamed, perhaps he was no Don Juan, but it wasn't long
and then all the lawyers would be sleeping on city sidewalks in
tent cities.
Think of the big picture... :-)
Tom C.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm glad you noted the smiley, Mark.
For the record:
In language theory, there are two kinds of OR:
1. exclusive, or alternative:
2. includive, or Boolean:
Yup, I'm aware of the difference between inclusive and exclusive
OR statements. I was taught in school that
Hi,
your explanation isn't really very clear. First you talk about
language theory, and then you talk about Boolean logic. 'or'
frequently works differently in natural language and boolean logic.
Your example 'coffee, tea or milk' is similar to a classic example
from philosophy courses of
Whoa hold on there Paul... there in lies the rub. You can't tell what a
girl really means when she says it, in fact the girl hasn't made up her mind
just EXACTLY WHAT SHE means at the point it comes out. The only time you
know for sure is when you have taken the inappropriate action and the
So anyone who disagrees with you is a rapist? I bet you're a real hoot at parties.
Doug
At 6:07 PM -04004/24/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] caused thus to appear:
Chris,
I agree: OBO is not binding, for the simple reason that it is
linguistically and legally impossible to establish when a winner must
You're lonely on Saturday nights, aren't you? :)
- Original Message -
From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Paul S-y wrote:
But then, we also assume that when
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2001 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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
Writing OBO without stating a time limit or mentioning that there is a
reserve figure in mind is dishonest because in the absence of these
conditions, the seller can keep refusing the highest offer indefinitely,
explaining, I'm still waiting for a better offer. His ad said, or best
offer. Till
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, tom wrote:
Maybe best reasonable offer might more accurate.
I've always thought of it as meaning the seller has a price in mind, but
is open to lower offers. I've never thought of it as dishonest.
I'm with Tom on this one. I very rarely use OBO but I can see where it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Writing OBO without stating a time limit or mentioning that there is a
reserve figure in mind is dishonest because in the absence of these
conditions, the seller can keep refusing the highest offer indefinitely,
explaining, I'm still waiting for a better offer.
I've always translated that to best acceptable offer.
IMHO, a seller has no requirement to accept any offer, even
a full price one until he says sold. However, I feel that
if he does not take an offer when offered it is subject to
being withdrawn without notice.
--Tom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris,
I have no problem with or best reasonable offer. It's the seller's
prerogative to define what's reasonable.
Nor have I ever submitted an offer to an OBO ad and had my offer rebuffed
indefinitely. It's simply been a longstanding pet peeve of mine. I would
never lowball a seller in the
Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
I've always translated that to best acceptable offer.
IMHO, a seller has no requirement to accept any offer, even
a full price one until he says sold.
Tom
I think that a full price offer completes a morally if not legally binding
contract. The only out the seller
- Original Message -
From: Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and
dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
It seems to me that once the seller has agreed to see something
to a person, he is morally at least, and possibly legally
obligated to see it for the price he
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that I've read Tom V's example--$500 or best offer--I have another
question: Does that mean, or best offer a bit below what I'm asking? Or
does it also include offers above what the seller is asking?
Hmmm... never thought of that before. For
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 humbly disagree, Bucky. If a vendor says $500 obo, he's making an offer to
the world. You're right, the courts do look at the intention of the parties,
but I'd say that the prima facie intention of the vendor is to sell the item to
the person who makes the highest offer (maybe bid is a better
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
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Frank Theriault wrote:
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
Hi, Todd,
I don't think this is silly at all!
Many people on this list buy and sell stuff on eBay and to and from others on this
list all the time, and I think it's a good thing for folks to know their rights
and responsibilities.
You're quite right, that if a purchaser gets screwed over by a
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
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Frank Theriault wrote:
So, I think that it's all for the better if both sellers and vendors
know what's morally and legally expected of them, and discussing
grey areas like this one are a valuable exercise, imho.
I'm not sure how valuable it will prove to be, but it's
Legality, is between him, you, and the law. If you say I
will give you $X, and he says, OK then he is legally
obligated to sell it to you at that price, and you are
legally obligated to buy it at that price. Please note: It
is the fact that the two of you have made an agreement that
makes it a
AFAIK there is no such thing as a unilateral contract. Two
or more parties have to come to an agreement before there is
a contract in effect, at least under English common law
which pretty much applies in most English speaking
countries.
--Tom
Frank Theriault wrote:
Trying to remember what
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
AFAIK there is no such thing as a unilateral contract. Two
or more parties have to come to an agreement before there is
a contract in effect, at least under English common law
which pretty much applies in most English
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Bucky wrote:
Yes, there is. A unilateral contract is a contract for which performance of
a condition constitutes acceptance. Unilateral refers not to the number
of parties involved, but rather o the fact that once the offer is out there,
the vendor (or offeror) has
: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Bucky wrote:
Yes, there is. A unilateral contract is a contract for which performance
of
a condition constitutes acceptance. Unilateral refers not to the number
of parties involved, but rather o the fact that once the offer is out
53 matches
Mail list logo
