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 .
>
> -
> 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 .
-
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 .
