OT Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 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. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 significantly less than it's worth. Chris, I don't follow the logic here. I would be forcing him to sell it at a lowball price only if he stipulated a time limit. If he said, OBO by the end of 30 April, you bet I'd force him to comply with his promise. In other words, you're saying that it's ethically okay to screw the seller because you want to read OBO literally, but it's not ethically okay for the seller to read OBO literally and delay the sale until they receive a fair bid. If I'm saying that, it's news to me. As I wrote earlier, I don't lowball. Even if someone is out of work, I would not take advantage of his desperation. I almost invariably cite a cross section of recent prices. Rob Studdert can attest that I sent him a list of recent prices for a 28/2A so that he would set an adequately high reserve when he posted the lens on EBay. (As it was, he was well aware of its value.) I simply can't follow the second part of your sentence, the clause about reading OBO literally. Since no temporality is implied in OBO, there is no time limit to extend. American list members over forty may recall the 1970s new-car dealer who said, on a television commercial, You can drive away with this car for just 3,500 bananas. One customer drove up with 3,500 bananas and insisted on getting the car. The dealer refused. The court supported the buyer. Would I do such a thing? Never. Do I regard that buyer as a scumbag for taking advantage of the word bananas when he knew in his heart that the dealer meant dollars? You bet. Chris, as I wrote in the passage you quoted in another posting, I have come to understand from you and others that no deception is intended by OBO. It is not unethical. It is frustrating and, to the literalists among us, misleading. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 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 two sides, a private sale vs. ebay sale, but the overriding fact is the property belongs to the seller not the buyer. The buyer cannot tell the seller what to do with the seller's own property. Period. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 two sides, a private sale vs. ebay sale, but the overriding fact is the property belongs to the seller not the buyer. The buyer cannot tell the seller what to do with the seller's own property. Period. Tom C. Paul wrote: Chris, I don't follow the logic here. I would be forcing him to sell it at a lowball price only if he stipulated a time limit. If he said, OBO by the end of 30 April, you bet I'd force him to comply with his promise. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 for significantly less than it's worth. Chris, I don't follow the logic here. I would be forcing him to sell it at a lowball price only if he stipulated a time limit. If he said, OBO by the end of 30 April, you bet I'd force him to comply with his promise. Ok, that sounds fair. I was referring to your irritation with sellers who use OBO without putting a time limit on it. At least, I think you were irritated about that. If not, please correct me. :) I interpreted your words to mean that if a buyer put in a bid (even a very low one) on an OBO item and the seller extended the sale indefinitely until they got a better offer, then the seller is being unfair to the buyer. My point is that maybe they are, but it's also unfair for the buyer to expect the seller to end the sale before the seller is ready to, possibly forcing the seller to accept a ridiculously low price. If person X offers a seller $100 for a $500 OBO item, and the seller doesn't get any higher bids within the first few weeks or even a month or so, then is the seller being unfair/misleading/unethical by continuing to solicit offers indefinitely? If you don't think so, then we agree. If you say yes, then is it unfair/unethical for the buyer to expect the seller to sell a $500 item for $100 (provided that the seller didn't specify a date)? If you think that both scenarios are rather unfair, then I can understand that. If you think that the seller is being unfair but the buyer is not, then I disagree. Of course, this is only if the seller does not specify a specific date or minimum bid. If they do, then obviously it's unethical (or at best questionable) for them to change their mind later. This is negotiating in bad faith, and I'd be wary of dealing with someone like this unless they had a very good reason. If you're a literalist, then you'll recognize (and I think you've said this before) that OBO clearly allows the seller to take as much time as they want to accept offers, since it doesn't limit them to a time frame. I wouldn't say that this is unfair, just that it's not the best way of conducting a sale. There's nothing wrong with a seller holding out until they receive an offer that they're happy with, but it would have been better had they specified a minimum offer. I don't think it's fair to expect a seller to specify a time frame for the bidding without having a minimum bid (works well on eBay sometimes, but not as much offline). I think what I'm essentially trying to say is that I don't see anything misleading about OBO, even though it's not my preferred method. It's just saying that the seller will accept the given price or the best offer that they receive within a time frame that they choose but do not have to announce to anyone (often the time it takes to get a reasonable offer). I find this a little awkward, but essentially fair. If the buyer wants the item badly enough that the waiting is a problem, then maybe they should offer more for it if the seller agrees to sell it to them immediately. I suppose each situation is unique. 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 .
Re: Or Best 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 your mind, there is no contract until both parties agree at the same time, otherwise they are just negotiating. Now states have passed laws that if you advertise something at a certain price you have to sell at that price, but I have never heard of it being enforced on individuals, and in any event it only applies to the specific situations addressed by the statute law. 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. The permission being what you would call an unilateral contract can be withdrawn at any time by the subject. I am only protected for using the likeness between the time they give me the permission and the time they withdraw the permission. In case of professional models, or controversial images I would use the ASMP long form model release and make at least a token payment. That would be a binding contract, and could not be withdrawn unless both parties agreed to it. Since we are getting down into the nitty gritty of law here let me say I am not an attorney, and there are always special cases of law that override general principles. So before you depend on what I or others on this list say, consult an attorney regarding your specific case. --Tom Bucky wrote: A unilateral contract is something like me saying, If you build me a doghouse, I'll pay you $100. Once you have completed the doghouse, or even embarked (in a non-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--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 there, the vendor (or offeror) has ceased to have legal discretion in the matter - if it is accepted, a binding contract crystallizes. There is ample jurisprudence in English, Canadian, and US jurisdictions dealing with the subject. Then there's the matter of acceptance. Could it be that the seller is saying, I want to sell this lens for this price to someone, and that it is the *buyer* who makes the offer to purchase it, which the seller must choose to accept or not? eBay rules let sellers cancel bidders' bids if they want to, suggesting that it is ultimately the seller who must accept the buyer's offer. Sellers have the right to refuse to accept an offer. Just something more to think about. :) 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
I think the silliness Todd was referring to was the suggestion that a seller after advertising a price is obliged to sell at that price. A view previously claimed by myself amongst others. Say your employer asked you to move home to a new posting. You advertise your home for sale. A few weeks later your employer says that the move is no longer necessary as a similar post has arisen locally. If in the meantime an offer has been made on your home at the advertised price are you obliged to sell?. I don't think so - unless you have drawn up formal contracts you can withdraw from the transaction. I know that the value of items talked about here is less but the principle of advertising to Test the water is commonly adopted. Peter -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Theriault Sent: 24 April 2001 03:47 To: [EMAIL 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 and responsibilities. You're quite right, that if a purchaser gets screwed over by a vendor, there's not much he/she can do about it. If a vendor changes his mind, he can certainly say, I've already sold it, or whatever, but that doesn't make the vendor right. If I, as a potential purchaser, feel that I've been screwed over, I'm not going to go to court, but I'm never going to deal with that seller again, and I'm certainly going to tell everyone I know about my experience with that seller, including communicating on lists like this one. 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. regards, frank Todd Stanley wrote: 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 whatever reason he wants, only after the auction ends does it turn into a contract where the seller has to sell the item at the final bid (assuming the reserve is met if there is one) Todd - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 to was the suggestion that a seller after advertising a price is obliged to sell at that price. A view previously claimed by myself amongst others. - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
No, if I offer you $100 and knowingly allow you to start building, there is a contract, nothing implied about it. It's verbal, to be sure, but it is still enforceable upon sufficient proof of the agreement. If I offer you $100 and you go off in secret and build the dog house, then whether I like it or not, I am bound by that as well, unless I withdrew the offer BEFORE you substantially embarked upon building it. Acceptance by performance. THAT is a unilateral contract. Whether people like the fact that it's called unilateral or not is immaterial; it's legal jargon. If you say unilateral contract to a contract lawyer, that's what (s)he'll assume you mean. _Waddams on Contracts_ is a good reference. -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 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 your mind, there is no contract until both parties agree at the same time, otherwise they are just negotiating. - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Simple permission is not a contract. A contract must be supported by consideration (ie. money). If you paid your model for the right to use the image, then (s)he cannot withdraw that permission, barring a specific clause allowing it, or some time limitation on the use, because you then have a contract. If you did not provide consideration to the model, there is no contract in place, only permission, which can be withdrawn at any time. -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 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. The permission being what you would call an unilateral contract can be withdrawn at any time by the subject. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 sell to the person who makes the best offer - reasonable or not. Sure, but in what time frame? A day? A week? A year? 10 years? If the time frame is not specified, then the seller can claim to be waiting for all of the offers to come in, can't they? That's the first thing I thought of! But then I also realized that most of these statements say something like $500.00 *or* best offer. Because that OR is in there they can always turn the best offer they receive and opt to hold out for the $500! ;-) (note smiley) - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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. My first choice would be: Best offer above $400 received by 2001 April 30. or First offer above $400 get it. Either phrasing guarantees that the seller receives an amount he can live with. Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the trouble with nitpicking unconditional statements is that it can be done back to you, too. If the seller says $500 OBO and you have the highest offer at, say, $100, then it's not likely they'll want to sell it for that. If you try and claim that OBO means that they should accept any offer because OBO is unconditional, then they can come right back and say that they didn't specify a time frame for the sale. Because they didn't specify this condition, they can take as long to sell it as they want. chris Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Strange? I thought that was exactly what I said. But, I wouldn't build a dog house for you without a written contract. --Tom Bucky wrote: Simple permission is not a contract. A contract must be supported by consideration (ie. money). If you paid your model for the right to use the image, then (s)he cannot withdraw that permission, barring a specific clause allowing it, or some time limitation on the use, because you then have a contract. If you did not provide consideration to the model, there is no contract in place, only permission, which can be withdrawn at any time. -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 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. The permission being what you would call an unilateral contract can be withdrawn at any time by the subject. - 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 .
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 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 here, so it will have to be insulated, and can we put a small furnace in for that price? Oh, and it must look modest, yet classy. Perhaps a nice stucco finish to match my house? And a shrubbery. Nothing to gaudy, just a nice tasteful shrubbery. Thanks William Robb - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 .
OT: Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 game. *LOL* That's why I like discussion like this one... they're fun. Though I'm going to start marking this thread OT, since it's more about selling than photography. Thanks for the laugh! :) 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 is a formal, structured environment with rules, regulations, and the power to enforce them. Has anyone tried doing this with a classified ad? Who's to say if the seller is even telling the truth? The buyer asks if his/her offer of $100 was the high bid and the seller says no. How is the buyer going to verify if this is true or not? It's completely unenforceable. Yes, Chris, the absense of a time frame clears them of legal responsibility. Again, that's my point! The ad isn't binding. The only way to make is to say, Look, either name a deadline, name a minimum, or name a first $XX gets it figure, but say SOMETHING to delimit what you mean. 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? I'd almost accept, Or best offer above a certain number that's in my head. :) Many bulletin boards--I'm speaking of the cork kind found on college campuses or supermarkets--have a policy: A notice can remain posted for just N weeks. If you try to be clever and accidentally leave off the date you posted it, your notice will be removed. Very true, but there's nothing to stop a seller from posting a new notice every N weeks if want to. As a buyer, you have the right to withdraw your bid if you feel that the seller is acting unethically. And *you* will have to decide what you consider unethical. If I suspected that my bid of $50 was the best current offer for an item the seller wanted $500 for, I wouldn't consider it unethical of them to post the notice again until they got a fairer offer. If my offer was in, say, the $400-$450 range, I might feel differently. If I wanted the item that bad, I would offer more. If I didn't, I would hold out and see if my $400-$450 bid would remain the high one. Perhaps after a few weeks of lower offers the seller will reconsider their appraisal of the item's value. However, there's also a chance that someone will offer more, and I'll lose the item. If I got the impression that the seller was negotiating in bad faith, I'd talk to them about it, and if I wasn't satisfied with their explanation (every situation will be different, and it's nice to know the seller's perspective) then I would withdraw my bid. Trust has to be there. 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 that has Nikon OR junk. So instructed, a highly Boolean search engine such as Alta Vista will will return three kinds of pages: a. Nikon cameras are swell.(only Nikon) b. Junk in, junk out. (only junk or its case variants) c. Nikon cameras are junk. (both character strings permitted). If you wanted ONLY Nikon, or ONLY junk, you would have to instruct Alta Vista to search for Nikon AND NOT junk. This particular example, however, could pose a problem: I'm not sure how well Alta Vista handles oxymorons. Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But then I also realized that most of these statements say something like $500.00 *or* best offer. Because that OR is in there they can always turn the best offer they receive and opt to hold out for the $500! ;-) (note smiley Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
- 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 diem... Hey, I have witnesses. You didn't mention anything about lodging, car rentals or per diems in the original offer. You said you would build a dog house for a hundred bucks. Now we just have to figure out if it is a hundred Canadian or American. It may be a bad deal Tom, but thats life. I want my dog house, as specified, or I'll sue your ass. HAR Wheatfield Willie - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
- 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. --Tom Ya, and now he is trying to weasel out of it. I bet he comes back and says that the smiley indicated he was just kidding around. G William Robb - 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 .
Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 do this or that for you, on the condition that you pay me such-and-such in return. Or: I agree to lend this tool to you, and you agree to take good care of it. While some of the legal analysis and debate hinges on written contracts, by far the greater share deals with implied or spoken agreements and implicit responsibility: 1. I lend you an axe, and while you use it the head comes off. Who is responsible? 2. I agree to watch your sheep while you are away, but I do it as a favor (for free); if a wolf kills one of your sheep, must I remunerate you? 3. I say I returned the money (or tool) that you lent me; you say I didn't. On whom lies the burden of proof? I am not suggesting that the conclusions adduced by the Talmud are the right conclusions for all societies and economies. But say what you will about being overly legalistic: The alternative--no rule of law--may be worse. -- Leonard Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Auctions have rules. Private sales don't. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
:-) :-) :-) Hey you can sue my ass all you want, but you won't get much money out of there... (maybe it's a safer place than the stock market though)... And if you do sue my ass I'll sue yours right back. Which court system do you think will be faster, Canadian or American? You sue me and I 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 - 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 diem... Hey, I have witnesses. You didn't mention anything about lodging, car rentals or per diems in the original offer. You said you would build a dog house for a hundred bucks. Now we just have to figure out if it is a hundred Canadian or American. It may be a bad deal Tom, but thats life. I want my dog house, as specified, or I'll sue your ass. HAR Wheatfield Willie - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 before she regretted her decision. After about the 15th round. she asked to back out of the deal, offering to return the Benz, with compensation. But the seller refused, insisting that their deal was binding. Their written agreementhad not not provided for this exigency. So the matter went to court. As I recall, the state ruled as follows: Since her service was not a legal activity, theirs was not a legal agreement. Tiger Moses [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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! Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Subject: RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
Well I would say OBO does not explicitly or implicity mean ANY offer accepted. Isn't that the crux if this? Do you grok what I'm saying? You're right any sale should follow fair business rules, but if they did then I wouldn't need to be calling my attorney about William Robb and his dog house 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--phrase 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 do this or that for you, on the condition that you pay me such-and-such in return. Or: I agree to lend this tool to you, and you agree to take good care of it. While some of the legal analysis and debate hinges on written contracts, by far the greater share deals with implied or spoken agreements and implicit responsibility: 1. I lend you an axe, and while you use it the head comes off. Who is responsible? 2. I agree to watch your sheep while you are away, but I do it as a favor (for free); if a wolf kills one of your sheep, must I remunerate you? 3. I say I returned the money (or tool) that you lent me; you say I didn't. On whom lies the burden of proof? I am not suggesting that the conclusions adduced by the Talmud are the right conclusions for all societies and economies. But say what you will about being overly legalistic: The alternative--no rule of law--may be worse. -- Leonard Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Auctions have rules. Private sales don't. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
[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 Boolean OR statements could be either inclusive or exclusive. Electronic logic diagrams have different symbols for inclusive and exclusive OR gates and the Boolean symbology used for describing logic circuits has different symbols for them. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 girl then clarifies that you did the wrong thing. Often you'll find that when given two choices, whichever action you take will be the wrong one. And it's all because you were not listening. Tom C. (with some experience in life) And when the girl says 'No' she might just be waiting for a better offer. Paul wrote: snip 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 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. -- Douglas Forrest Brewer Ashwood Lake Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alphoto.com - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 a girl said No, she means No. I n e v e r assume a girl means No, no matter what she says... Lasse - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
- 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 No, she means No. WRONG, it means buy her another drink. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 when? Till Kingdom come? When will he finally realize that no one will outbid me in the foreseeable future, and he should honor the ad? Think of an eligible maiden in a small village. I'll marry the man who offers me the best dowry, she promises. So all the men offer their dowries, and after a month has passed, they're still awaiting her decision. But she refuses to marry any of them. A better ofer might yet come along...perhaps from another village. In other words, I'll honor the best offer...if I am satisfied with it. If I'm not, I'll keep telling you I'm still open to offers, no matter how much time passes. Hey--If you won't sell below a certain figure, say so. Don't get everyone's hopes up. That's the EBay way, and it's the right way. -- tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW:Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 could come in handy. In addition to the example Tom mentioned, it's nice to use when you have an item but you have little idea of what it will sell for. As far as leaving the sale open, I suppose it does. But private selling is not like eBay, where a sale must end after a certain number of days. I can always refuse to sell something if the price is too low. Why can't I take a year to sell something if no one offers me a good price in the first eleven months? I understand your frustration at having the seller stretch out the sale indefinitely, but if you want the item that bad, shouldn't you bid more? It might seem unfair, but in the end it's the seller's prerogative. If you want to know the time frame of the sale, ask the seller, but I think it's urealistic to expect them to give you a definite frame right off that bat. If no one makes what the seller deems to be a reasonable offer, then why shouldn't they wait longer to see if anyone does? Forcing them into bargains because of time frames is an eBay tactic, not one for private sales unless you get very lucky. I agree that OBRO (reasonable offer) is more accurate, but I think most people assume that the reasonable is implicit. If not, then the seller's right to take as long as they want to sell the item comes into play. What prompted this, Paul? It sounds like you missed out on a real doozy because of a seller holding out for more money. What's up? 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
[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. Hmm. I see your point, and agree that it may not be the ideal way to sell something, but I fail to see where the dishonesty lay. I guess I've always just thought $500 OBO is biz-speak for I think $500 is a fair price, but I'm not sure what the market value is and am open to other reasonable offers. I don't see any intent to deceive...I guess I think of a private sale more as a negotiation rather than an advertisement for goods like you see in a magazine, and the OBO clause just allows haggling room. His ad said, or best offer. Till when? Till Kingdom come? When will he finally realize that no one will outbid me in the foreseeable future, and he should honor the ad? I didn't see the original ad you're referring to, so maybe I'm missing something. Anyway, if you bid the price he asked, he *would* honor the ad. If he didn't, then *that* would be dishonest, obviously... tv - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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: I've always had a problem with classified ads that say xxx dollars or best offer (OBO). Let's say the best offer is $20. Will the seller sell? Of course not! - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 hope of being the only bidder. When I make an offer, it is already in line with the documented market value; I usually provide current URLs to dealer sites to prove it. Of course, my offer takes into account that one expects to pay a bit less when buying from an individual. But not far less. When I was 13, I entered a contest to win an eight-track tape player. There was no limit to how many entry forms one was permitted to fill in and drop in the contest box at the store. I went there with a couple hundred name-and-address labels, licking and pasting them onto the entry forms in rapid succession. I won. The next time the merchant held such a contest, the entry form said, The use of address labels is not permitted. But he didn't disallow my entry forms, which I had submitted in good faith. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry goes shopping with Elaine to buy himself a chic sportjacket at a chic men's clothing store. After Jerry buys the jacket, the salesman asks Elaine for a date, and she accepts. Jealous, Jerry returns to the store the next day to return the jacket. May I ask the reason you wish to return it? asks the woman in Returns. My reason? says Jerry. Spite. Just a moment. The woman repeats their exchange to her manager; we hear, [buzz buzz buzz buzz] 'Spite'. Then the manager walks up to Jerry and says, I'm sorry, we cannot accept a return based on spite. 'Fine, says Jerry, I decided I don't like the material. I'm sorry, intones the manager, You've already confessed that your reason is 'spite'. Look--If you have an unconditional policy, and it backfires on you, don't slap conditions on it as an afterthought. Learn from your mistakes and next time, include conditions. That's what a Seattle-based chain of department stores did. It was known for having the most generous, no-questions-asked return policy; perpahs it was No questions asked. Well, the chain was losing enormous sums of money because teenage girls would buy an expensive dress a few days before the prom or homecoming dance, then return the dress the day after the dance because it didn't fit. Today that chain of stores will still take a dress back, no questions asked. But the tag must still be attached. They were burned by their lack of foresight, and they've learned from their costly mistake. My point is: Don't punish the buyer because you, the seller, didn't cover all your bases. 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? Let's say somone advertises a lens that many of us would want: a Pentax 85/1.8K. The price? $500 or best offer. The ad appears on a Tuesday, and you immediately send an email saying, Yes, I'll take it for $500. As soon as I hear back from you, I'll get a money order from the bank and mail it. He says, Great! I wasn't expecting to get what I had asked for. Is the lens yours? If you say, Yes, then suppose a collector in another country notices the ad a day later. He immediately sends an email, saying, I'll pay you $600! Who should get the lens? At least three of you have now written that you have always understood best offer to mean best reasonable offer. Frankly, I'm stunned. In the world I inhabit, an unconditional statement means unconditionally. Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What prompted this, Paul? It sounds like you missed out on a real doozy because of a seller holding out for more money. What's up? Paul Franklin Stregevsky - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 would have would be that he has already agreed a sale to a prior offer or the buyer fails to come up with the consideration in which case the buyer is in breach. Or Best Offer ( Or Nearest Offer- ono in UK) has no such bind. Think of a bartering situation - each offer is just that, an offer, and each party counter offers until the opposite party says Yes OK at which point a contract is made. If no one says Yes OK to an offer then either party can walk away. An advertised price is an offer to which the other party can say Yes to thus completing the contract. Peter - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
- 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 agreed to, even if a better offer comes along. I have sold a couple of items to list members in the past year, and facilitated another transaction by posting a for sale on the list. In retrospect, I should have waited longer to reply to potential buyers, as I could have made substantial profit by waiting. However, Once I said I would sell at a certain price, then as far as I was concerned, I had made a deal, and was obligated to sell. That is the way it should be done. I have always thought that best offer means best reasonable offer. If someone makes a ridiculously low offer, then the best offer would be to keep the product for ones self. William Robb - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 me, it usually depends on the order of the requests. If someone offers me the $500 I was asking, and then later (even before I reply to them) someone else offers me $600, I'd sell it to the first person, simply because they were first. But if the $600 was the first offer, and then $500, I'd sell it to the $600 bidder because they were first. As far as I work, it's the first offer that meets or exceeds my price. If I wanted to do what you were talking about, I wouldn't use an OBO clause. I'd say something like, I'll be accepting offers until next Friday night, and the highest offer between now and Friday night will win the item. Usually I like to just give it to the first person who asks, to reward promptness, but if I *really* need the money then I'd consider accepting offers for a few days before going with the highest. That's different from OBO, IMO, and should be explicitly specified as such. Let's say somone advertises a lens that many of us would want: a Pentax 85/1.8K. The price? $500 or best offer. The ad appears on a Tuesday, and you immediately send an email saying, Yes, I'll take it for $500. As soon as I hear back from you, I'll get a money order from the bank and mail it. He says, Great! I wasn't expecting to get what I had asked for. Is the lens yours? I would expect so, yes. If you say, Yes, then suppose a collector in another country notices the ad a day later. He immediately sends an email, saying, I'll pay you $600! Who should get the lens? The first bidder ($500). I suppose OBO could be stretched to encompass prices *above* the desired amount, but I've never thought of it that way before. Like I said above, if you're going to accept higher offers than your desired price *even if they come after an acceptable offer* then you should say that explicitly, and should probably provide a time frame. At least three of you have now written that you have always understood best offer to mean best reasonable offer. Frankly, I'm stunned. In the world I inhabit, an unconditional statement means unconditionally. I'm talking about the best reasonable offer *below* the desired price. And the trouble with nitpicking unconditional statements is that it can be done back to you, too. If the seller says $500 OBO and you have the highest offer at, say, $100, then it's not likely they'll want to sell it for that. If you try and claim that OBO means that they should accept any offer because OBO is unconditional, then they can come right back and say that they didn't specify a time frame for the sale. Because they didn't specify this condition, they can take as long to sell it as they want. You can't force them to sell something before they're ready to, though you can retract your bid in protest. I don't see anything unethical about waiting for a reasonable offer, though it's not the way I would choose to do it. If you want to pick nits about OBO being unconditional (even though it would be pretty unfair to the seller to expect them to sell something for a huge loss), then you have to admit that the seller is not tied into any particular time frame for making the sale (even though that may seem unfair to the buyer). Is that a clearer explanation of what I think? I'm coming down with a cold now so I'm not entirely all here. :) 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 term, since offer, as you seem to know, is a technical term in contract law). If I say $50, I accept your offer, then I've accepted the offer, and a contract is made. If a time period isn't stipulated, then it would be an implied term of the contract that it's open for a reasonable time period, or until withdrawn by the vendor - but it could only be withdrawn prior to the offer being accepted by a purchaser. As to what a reasonable time period might be, if the vendor and purchaser can't agree on that, then the courts could determine it. They determine implied clauses in contracts all the time. As I said in my previous post, the real problem would be what one's remedy would be in such a situation; obviously going to court over such a small amount would be silly and expensive - not worth anyone's while. But then, I'm not a contract lawyer, and I could be wrong! regards, frank Bucky wrote: I would suggest the courts would look at an OBO offering as an invitation to treat, where the next step would be an offer on the part of the buyer, and an acceptance (or lack of it) on the part of the seller. The overriding consideration in contract law is that the court will look at the intention of the parties in a transaction. It's really unlikely they'd find a unilateral contract in such a situation. - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 whatever reason he wants, only after the auction ends does it turn into a contract where the seller has to sell the item at the final bid (assuming the reserve is met if there is one) Todd At 10:17 PM 4/23/01 -0400, you wrote: 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 offer. That's the gist of it, yeah. 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). Really? I was under the impression that a buyer or seller could legally back out of a sale unless a contract had been signed or a legally binding action had been performed. eBay rules state *explicitly* that your bid is a contract, so that sews that up. But a casual private sale doesn't require a buyer to sign any sort of legal agreement, and I wouldn't think that any implied binding action would occur. If the seller suddenly decides not to sell it because it's either stolen, damaged, or they need it, can't they legally withraw the offer to sell any time before the payment is sent? Note that I'm not talking about ethics, but about legality, which I know nothing about. 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!) H... Personally, I wouldn't think a seller a sleazeball if they refused to sell a $500 item for $50 even if they said OBO. If I thought my offer was fair, then I'd be pissed off at the seller, but if my offer was ridiculously low then I'd just accept it. But then, being a reasonably intelligent person, and an honourable and astute businessman, you'd never make such an open-ended offer, would you? ;-) I wouldn't say never. :) When I do sell something that's not on eBay, my preferred method is to set a specific price and sell it to the first person who offers that amount. If it goes a while without being sold, I'll consider accepting lower offers. If I want to get the most I can for an item, I'll post a time frame during which I will accept offers on it, and it will go to the person with the highest offer over my publically-announced minimum amount at the end of the time period. Something like, I'm accepting bids on this lens until Friday night, and the highest offer over $500 by that time wins it. I've never thought much about the implications of OBO before. I still don't like the phrase, but if I do use it I'll probably try something like OBRO instead, where *I* decide what a reasonable offer is. I still don't buy into the scary legal stuff, but at heart you have a good point. How much of this is based on intent? Is a lens for sale really a promise to sell it? Would it be different if the seller said, I'm considering selling this lens, so please submit bids for $500 OBO and I'll consider them? 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 .
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 and responsibilities. You're quite right, that if a purchaser gets screwed over by a vendor, there's not much he/she can do about it. If a vendor changes his mind, he can certainly say, I've already sold it, or whatever, but that doesn't make the vendor right. If I, as a potential purchaser, feel that I've been screwed over, I'm not going to go to court, but I'm never going to deal with that seller again, and I'm certainly going to tell everyone I know about my experience with that seller, including communicating on lists like this one. 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. regards, frank Todd Stanley wrote: 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 whatever reason he wants, only after the auction ends does it turn into a contract where the seller has to sell the item at the final bid (assuming the reserve is met if there is one) Todd - 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
OK. I don't know if this will help, but in the newspaper business in classifieds, the OBO is pretty much understood to be a REASONABLE offer. Obviously, if someone has a truck easily worth $5,000 and someone tries to lowball him with an utterly ridiculous offer of $1,500 hoping the seller is desperate, the seller will turn it down (probably with extreme prejudice), as he will sense the potential buyer isn't dealing in good faith. Unless the price of the vehicle is stated as $5,000 firm, the potential buyer may also assume there is some haggle room. Of all the weird complaints we've had 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 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. Sure, but in what time frame? A day? A week? A year? 10 years? If the time frame is not specified, then the seller can claim to be waiting for all of the offers to come in, can't they? 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. Ok, how about this... I'm selling something for $500 OBO. The top offer after a week or two is $50. That's too low, so I decide that I want to keep it, and offer myself $60 for it. If owners of corporations can pay themselves, why can't I pay myself for the lens? On a side note, I'm not defending unethical behaviour, as I'm sure anyone who's had dealings with me will know. I'm just trying to understand how a seemingly innocent phrase like OBO can force a seller into a contract whereby they *must* sell the item. Who determines the time frame? 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 pretty entertaining so far. :) 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 .
Re: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase [was: FW: Ricoh / Pentaxsystem]
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 legally enforceable contract. Morals, are between him and God, or at least him and the church. Ethics, are between him and his conscience. If he has no ethics I don't really care to do business with him anyway. Ethos, (how come ethos is never mentioned) are between him and society. violating ethos usually results in some degree of ostracism. For instance, His word is no good, don't do business with him. This seems to be what most of those posting here are are referring to. Is this pedantic enough, do you think? grin --Tom - 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 .
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 speaking countries. --Tom 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. - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
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 ceased to have legal discretion in the matter - if it is accepted, a binding contract crystallizes. There is ample jurisprudence in English, Canadian, and US jurisdictions dealing with the subject. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse Sent: April 23, 2001 8:44 PM 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 speaking countries. --Tom 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. - 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: 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 there, the vendor (or offeror) has ceased to have legal discretion in the matter - if it is accepted, a binding contract crystallizes. There is ample jurisprudence in English, Canadian, and US jurisdictions dealing with the subject. Then there's the matter of acceptance. Could it be that the seller is saying, I want to sell this lens for this price to someone, and that it is the *buyer* who makes the offer to purchase it, which the seller must choose to accept or not? eBay rules let sellers cancel bidders' bids if they want to, suggesting that it is ultimately the seller who must accept the buyer's offer. Sellers have the right to refuse to accept an offer. Just something more to think about. :) 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 .
RE: Or Best Offer: a misleading--and dishonest--phrase
That would be my position (and, I suspect, that of a court). A stated price is an invitation to treat. The prospective buyer makes an OFFER to purchase, subject to acceptance at the vendor's discretion. At auctions, unlesss there is a specific statutory provision (or a signed agreement between the auctioneer and the owner) prohibiting it, a seller can withdraw his/her item from teh auction at any time before the auctioneer pounds the gavel and yells, sold. A unilateral contract is something like me saying, If you build me a doghouse, I'll pay you $100. Once you have completed the doghouse, or even embarked (in a non-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--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 there, the vendor (or offeror) has ceased to have legal discretion in the matter - if it is accepted, a binding contract crystallizes. There is ample jurisprudence in English, Canadian, and US jurisdictions dealing with the subject. Then there's the matter of acceptance. Could it be that the seller is saying, I want to sell this lens for this price to someone, and that it is the *buyer* who makes the offer to purchase it, which the seller must choose to accept or not? eBay rules let sellers cancel bidders' bids if they want to, suggesting that it is ultimately the seller who must accept the buyer's offer. Sellers have the right to refuse to accept an offer. Just something more to think about. :) 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 .
