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. That's one facet of what shilling is about,
> and it's wrong.
I grant you that you're correct in a literal sense, and that "or best
reasonable offer" would be more acurate. But I think that the vast
majority of people assume that the "reasonable" is implicit, and that a
seller saying "OBO" is under no obligation to sell a $500 item for $1,
$50, or even $100. And even in a legal sense, the seller is perfectly
within their rights to decide to sell it later if they think that the best
offer is still to come. I don't see anything unfair about this; on the
contrary, it's rather unfair to expect a seller to part with an item for
significantly less than it's worth. While "OBO" may be misleading if the
seller decides to try accepting offers on it at a later time (which is why
I don't like to use it for my private sales), it's still perfectly legal
for them to decide to tender offers on it at a later time. Whether it's
unethcial or not has to be left to the morals of the seller and the
individual situation.
> My first choice would be:
>
> Best offer above $400 received by 2001 April 30."
>
> or
>
> First offer above $400 get it."
Agreed. After the straight "first offer of $400 gets it" that I prefer,
these are the only two ways that I would consider selling an item
privately, unless I really wanted to get rid of it and used "OBO."
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 .
