I'm curious how people on both sides of the issue feel about this situation:

A potential buyer posts a claim in a B/S/T thread at the asking price and sends a PM at that time. Before the seller responds, they get an offer from another member offering more than the asking price. Neither buyer is objectionable to the seller. They end up taking the higher (later) offer simply for the money.

Personally, I wouldn't necessarily bear any ill will toward the seller in that situation. And yet, if I were the seller in such a situation, I would feel guilty not taking the first offer.

This happens all the time in the housing market. No one seems to have a problem with it.

Not me. I'd take the higher offer.

We aren't talking about a kidney for transplant - we're talking about highly non-essential collectibles.

Man people choose some weird hills to die on here ...

I’m guessing that part of the angst is probably driven by a comparison with eBay.

If I post a piece using the BIN function on eBay, and someone clicks the button to buy it, they can reasonably expect that I’m actually going to sell it to them.

If 30 mins later I get a PM from another buyer offering me more, and I cancel the original transaction, then the original buyer probably has a right to get their dander up.

Now, obviously, the BST here is not eBay. But for some buyers, they might feel like similar principles should apply.

Straight forward scenario/question:

Seller has item for sale in BST.

Buyer A makes the offer to pay asking price and agrees to all ship methods, etc.

Seller sends confirmation the item is sold to Buyer A.

A couple hours later, the seller receives correspondence indicating Buyer B is interested and seller tells Buyer B, "sorry, it's sold". Buyer B ups the offer by 20%. Seller decides they'd want more cash and will take the offer.

QUESTION - How would you feel as Buyer A? I read what the lawyers are writing and the word "contract" comes up. Is there really a legally binding contract based on a couple emails?

In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.

Agreement is offer and acceptance. That is a binding contract. A couple emails is more than sufficient evidence that a contract exists. Seller backs out after agreeing to the buyer's offer, it's a breach of that contract. That is different than the scenario in this thread, where the seller never agrees to sell to the buyer.

Exactly. Offers and discussions can be made, but when the seller agrees to a deal, that's the end of it.

Of course, it shouldn't be ignored that damages are potentially minimal, so pursuing the breach is often worthless, but it's still breach. And I would argue THAT is a breach of eitquette. Unlike this thread, where the breach of etiquette in my opinion is whining about not getting the card, not the seller selling to who they choose.

Phil has been quiet.

Indeed.

Well - this thread has certainly gotten more mileage than its worth..........

....In my book, the seller's a butthead for backing out for any reason. I wouldn't pursue it further, just avoid the seller. I wouldn't create a post indicating the seller's a butthead, but fact is, the seller is a butthead if they renege on a deal (for just about any reason). Yes, it's the sellers item and prerogative to do whatever they choose, but if you have an agreement, honor it.......



That's why Net54 and B/S/T are the best place to do business............
..............we don't have any buttheads.:D

again, extremely well put
 

I'm not a lawyer but your explanation makes perfect sense to me - some people are never going to be convinced of anything, though.

Also, the scenario of preventing the blind kid diving into the empty pool seems like a comically bad analogy for the selling of a sports card....

I’m fascinated , to be honest

I have had this happen as a seller multiple times and buyer A got the card they paid for. I don't remember even having it happen to me as a buyer and I have never offered someone more to sell me a card they had already sold.

I rarely sell anything here, so it's somewhat irrelevant, but in the past I added something to the effect of, "If multiple people contact me about the same card, I will give preference to the guy I'm friendly with. Hope that isn't a problem."

If it's friend versus flipper (Yes, he can do whatever he wants with a card once he buys it. It's not about that.), the friend always wins...even though we pretty much know nothing about our online Net54 friends, do we?? :D:eek::D

If a seller did that, then that can eat fecal matter and die as far as I am concerned.

However, none of the deals I personally have been involved in here on net54 have been anywhere like that.

Death seems a bit severe for taking a higher offer :eek:

Penalty of death applies only to a seller of a slabbed card.

Mr. Monk would say eating fecal matter would be worse...

Perhaps this can be the next contentious thread, debating whether being forced to eat shit or being killed is the appropriate punishment for taking a higher offer after a lower one was accepted, and which is worse to suffer. OP’s take seems entirely reasonable now that the bar of comparison has been lowered to this.

You're my new favorite person! Absolutely love Monk!!

The expression contemplates both, sequentially.

I am aware.

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

Getting back to the OP's question. ( yes I am aware that the OP's assumption has been proven false) that where a person offering to buy a single card vs a person who offers to buy Multiple cards in a thread. Is it bad etiquette to focus your efforts to the person offering multiple sales vs the single in the case where the single card was "claimed" first? Like most here I log on at best a few times a day. If I had 2 emails offering to meet my terms on a card where one was an offer for multiple cards and one was a single. I would choose to sell to the multiple buyer. First and foremost as almost all BST transactions are sold including postage, the Multiple sale nets me more money for the card. As long as I hadn't already accepted any other offer, I would treat a multiple offer as one for slightly more, because it is. I net a little more and spend less time processing on a per card basis. It is simple economics. The only thing that would trump that is if I knew a collector was focused on a set or player. I have a soft spot for other collectors and might spend a little more on postage to help one. Example if I have a Ryan item I might choose to sell to well known Ryan collector vs buyer who is unknown to
me.
Jmho

You'd be losing a lot of money mixing up offers=pink sell tickets and bids=blue buy tickets working in a stock brokerage. It's your error, you eat it. Your firm does not. (Unless you quit of course and even then your firm will still take any loss out of any salary owing to you.)

That's not consistent with another detail that has the force of law in many jurisdictions including my own. If there are two price tags on an item, the retailer MUST honour the lower price tag at the cash register. In other words, the price tags are treated as the retailer's offer to sell under the law.

;)

I guess I too am in the minority, but I would have thought selling to the first taker was just basic civil behavior and common sense. Would not have expected all the resistance to that concept.

:eek:

I do! For the listing price not to be treated as a firm offer to sell at that price is absurd. And you'll find it very difficult to find any stock broker who does not agree with me. Offer/Ask=the Price at which a Seller agrees to Sell. Bid=the Price at which a Buyer agrees to Buy.

The stock market and the housing market are very different as far as how they are regulated and how they work. Also, people have no problem offering less than the listed price for a house so why should a seller be prohibited from accepting a higher offer?

That's a bid.

No need for a prohibition. But since a buyer should be able to simply take up the offering, there would be no need to bid a higher price than the offering, i.e. listed price.

;)

I'm sorry if you don't like how the housing market works, but I don't think it's going to change just to make you happy.

B/S/T translations. :)

"Asking $1000 net to me dlvd."
Translation: if you offer me $1000, I'll consider it.

"I'll take it!!"
Translation: I offer $1000, should you choose to accept it.

"PM sent"
Translation: useless attempt to discourage subsequent offers because being first is irrelevant.

Yes, that's the way house selling works, but it leaves a lot to be desired before it can be classified as a fair or efficient market.

:(

About 25 years ago my wife and I sold a house in a competitive market. Asking price was around $350,000. We orally agreed to an offer of our asking price. Before we were legally bound, we received another offer $10,000 above asking. We declined. Our agent was surprised and assured us we were within our legal right to accept the new offer. We said that even though we legally could go back on our word, it wasn't something we thought was the right thing to do.

Passing no judgment here. I share the story only to illustrate that such practices aren't new. We were and are blessed that we could comfortably walk away from an extra $10,000 and instead do what we think was morally just. I understand that an extra $10,000 selling a house or an extra $10 selling a card is more important to some than to others. I don't agree with the thought that going back on your word is an accepted practice by everyone, no matter what the scenario or amount of money.

This analogy is just as bad. Walmart is a retail store open to the public with the very purpose of selling their goods to any and all who come to buy them. This is a vastly different scenario than a private person selling personal property.

You are trying to hard to justify pointless outrage over a seller's rights.

For someone appearing to work in the stock market, you seem to not understand fundamental differences between a brokered sale of stock and a sale of private personal property, and the legal reasons for that (hint: there were a couple important laws passed in the 30s that deal with securities and treat them differently).

+1

Eggs are totally overrated ---- Can take em or leave em

Try to play the moral superiority card all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there might be valid reasons why a person might choose to not sell to the first taker, and they shouldn't have to, nor does anyone have the right to question them. Maybe one day when a person who has proven to be a difficult buyer or a scammer is first taker on one of your cards your integrity will be put to the test. Then we'll see how strongly held your pharisaical convictions really are.

I didn't bring up Walmart. You did -- to make the point that Walmart is not actually making an offer to customers at the prices listed, but rather inviting customers to make offers to Walmart that Walmart can legally either accept or decline.

I guess your argument is now that Walmart should have a higher duty (beyond that required by the contract principles you cite) because they are in the corporate retail business. And that is distinguishable from a person who posts an advertisement to sell a card on a well known, public internet forum that is viewed by hundreds, if not thousands, of potential buyers on any given day.

That's a much more nuanced argument than the one you seemed to be making before.

Bit of a straw man here, but in today's market, least on my street, offers are 200k over asking. It wouldn't be financially prudent to still hold your word for 200k more. Same I've seen with some transactions. A card grossly mispriced, someone emails the seller "hey dumb dumb" card is sold for much higher.

I guess the yolk(s) would be on her.

I brought up Walmart as an example of the principle I was explaining. And the legal principle I set forth applies to them as well. They are not treated differently than anyone else. However, they choose to do things differently for their own reasons, namely the one I gave distinguishing them from a private seller. But that doesn't mean the legal principles don't apply to them.

You are terribly misstating my argument. I never once said Walmart is held to a higher standard. In fact, it's the opposite. I used them as an example because they aren't held to a higher stadard. I distinguished their circumstances because you tried to use them as an example, falsely equating the circumstances and reaction to applying their legal rights. As is clear in this thread, one might choose to forego exercising a legal right they have for various reasons. Walmart, as a large public retailer, has different reasons to forego that right than a private individual selling personal property on an internet message board. If you can't see the distinction, then I don't know what to tell you.

Maybe I'm slow. Is the distinction then the fact that the sale is being advertised over an internet message board? What if the seller has a one-man, brick and mortar shop, and he's selling the same card. First customer walks in, points to the card in the display case, and says, "I'll take it for the price on the sticker."

We have established that the seller doesn't have a legal obligation to sell anything to the customer. Is it your argument, however, that the seller would be acting in accordance with community standards, if he declines to sell it to that customer, but then sells it instead to the next guy who walks in and also offers to pay the full listed price?

It is certainly much more accepted that a small business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone (as evidenced by many small shops with signs stating just that), than the largest retailer in the world refusing service to someone. So yes, you could say "community standards" play a part in why one might not choose to refuse to sell to someone. But community standards will apply less and less the smaller the seller. Walmart does things a certain way because that's what's expected from them. A small business does something a certain way, base more on what they want to do than expectations, but they certainly have to be concerned with public perception. A private seller on a message board, who isn't in the business of selling cards, is less concerned than anyone with those things and has the most freedom to do things how they want. And again, they should be able to refuse to deal with anyone on the board who they don't want to have to deal with. There are many reasons why they might want to exercise that right. And it's none of my concern why they chose to do so.

So you'd be ok with being that first customer? You wouldn't be offended at all that the shopkeeper didn't sell it to you even though you offered first?

It's their right.

I guess some of us aren't as easily offended as others (or feel as entitled as others).

I'm trying to decide if the most amusing thing about this thread is:

a) Most of the discussion is about a scenario that is different from the OP's question

b) Very early on in the thread, it was revealed that the entire premise of the original post (that OP made the first offer to buy but the seller never accepted his offer and sold to someone else) DIDN'T HAPPEN. The seller sold to the first offer he received, and has the time stamps to prove it. Yet somehow, that's getting lost in a discussion of the finer points of offer and acceptance - which is fascinating, but not relevant to the matter at hand.