I knew I shoulda stayed out of this! Yeah, I realised it was a complex issue - although I never thought through just how complex!
I'm gonna defer on this one if I may - it has been interesting so far but I don't wanna debate it to death. You certainly have some valid points, although if I wanted to be pedantic and wanted to carry on the debate then I could pick on some of the idividual examples you make - that doesn't change the validity of the general principle you point out. I guess the problem is that the definition of sale depends on whether you are talking from a right of ownership, tax or whatever other point of view. All this doesn't change the fact that Bruce actually agreed to a clear definition of what the bet meant by 'for sale'. Rob BTW: at least one ist-D has been sold outside of Japan - I can personally vouch for that! It was one of 2 bought from a shop in Japan a few days ago... ha > -----Original Message----- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 September 2003 22:53 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984 > > > I hesistate to wade into this, but what the hell... > > I don't think it's that simple, Rob. > > Yes, if you pay for an item that you have not yet received, a > transaction of some sort has occurred. You can sell your > rights to that camera (to continue with the *ist D analogy) > even if you don't have the camera in hand. Since there's an > Latin legal maxim, "nemo dat non quod habet", "no man can > sell what he doesn't own", and since you can sell your rights > to that camera, you've obviously acquired something, even > though it's not yet a camera. > > People actually sell their rights to something that they do > not yet have possession of all the time. It's common in real > estate to sell agreements of purchase and sale, during > periods of a hot market. It's called flipping property. > > That being said. although once you've paid for your *ist D > you have rights, and some sort of transaction has occurrred, > we certainly can't say that the transaction has been > completed, can we? What about the warranty? Would you want > to say that it starts running when you paid the money, or > when you received the camera? What if the boatload of *ist > D's headed for the New World sinks. Could either Pentax or > the store to which you paid the money say, "sorry, you're > camera went down with the ship. The risk was yours, as the > transaction has been completed; you lose!" No, the risk of > such loss is upon the vendor, because the transaction hasn't > been completed. > > I guess what I'm saying is that the transaction of the sale > is not complete untill ~all consideration~ flows both ways, > between buyer and seller. Until then, it's a sale still in progress. > > Looking at it that way, no *ist D has been sold to date - at > least not outside of Japan, where someone on this list says a > camera store that is out of stock says that they've sold some. > > regards, > frank > > Rob Brigham wrote: > > > Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the > > exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no > commitment has > > been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but > could be a > > legal > > commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy > something on ebay or > > any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you > > receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world > you are in - > > its all the same. > > > > -- > Honour - that virtue of the unjust! > -Albert Camus > > >
