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 .
