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 [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]
[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 [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 .
