I got screwed over on the BST today!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

I believe that real estate transactions involve removing "contingencies" in a "time is of the essence" manner. Should B/S/T transactions follow suit?

Not singling you out, Peter. I agree with what you've posted.

Nor am I suggesting that the B/S/T be aligned with the purchase and sale of houses.

I merely think that the (prospective) buyers and sellers mentioned within this thread might have benefitted by more transparently disclosing their particular situations here.

Best regards,

Eric

Yes, Dan should have, if there was a contingency that threatened to undo the deal. I don't see why Eric should have.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, Dan should have, if there was a contingency that threatened to undo the deal. I don't see why Eric should have.

Peter,

Again, I agree with you.

The buyer did everything correctly, within the context of the Net54 B/S/T...and on almost every other level.

Should he have sold his Mantle before having the upgrade in hand? The answer to that is open to interpretation. I personally believe (as do you, if I am not mistaken) that the OP was right in expecting the "seller" to deliver a specific performance.

Would I let the original card go before having the upgrade in hand? Who knows? Does it really matter?

In this particular case:

"Seller" offered the card for sale
Buyer negotiated with "seller"
The two parties agreed upon a price
Buyer delivered the money

As far as I am concerned, the buyer completed their end of the transaction completely and in good faith. The "seller" backed out of a deal that was already done. Shame on them.

Again, I am not singling you out or disagreeing with you regarding the main point of this discussion.

Yes, Dan is a weasel for backing out of a deal that he not only negotiated with the buyer...he was also paid in full and then reneged on the deal.

Best regards,

Eric