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.

Just because OP's premise turned out to be false, doesn't lessen the relevance of the discussion to this board, as evidenced by so many wanting to participate in the discussion.

I've qualified my opinion all along by saying there could be exceptional circumstances. Certainly a scammer would be one of them.

And I've said that generally speaking, there is no reason not to sell to the first in line.

But do you want to have to publicly answer questions if you do choose to sell to the second person? Should you have to? It seems to put you in a position to exercise LESS etiquette that way, given you might have to say something negative about a person you don't want to deal with, rather than just have it accepted that you have the prerogative to sell to whomever you want. We should all just respect that right, and not demand answers.

If I didn't sell to the first offeror, I don't think I would owe the Board an explanation, no.

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

B should be the answer because it is just that silly. Saying that it is A by a country mile because of all the off topic posts by a few that love to argue. Heck these threads are my daily dose of comedy.:D

Since we’re having so much fun, let’s take this to the next level, but with some facts that maybe aren’t all that far from what could realistically happen in our world.

Let’s say you’re traveling for work. You stop by a local card shop and see a piece that you’re interested in buying. You tell the owner that you’ll take it for full price.

The owner responds to let you know that he was supposed to take it out of the case earlier because he has a long-time customer who has single handedly kept the store alive that called earlier in the day and is coming in this evening to check that exact card out and most likely buy it for full price. So he prefers to wait until after that customer makes a final decision.

Does that sequence of events leave you steamed and ready to tell off the LCS owner for jerking your chain around? Would your answer change if you suspect he might just be playing you to get a higher offer?

Let’s take it a step further. You decide that you’re not going down without a fight, so you offer an extra 30% to buy it right now. The LCS owner, being no dummy, sells it to you on the spot.

Now let’s turn the tables. If you were the long-time customer who was planning to buy it that evening, would you be steamed to show up that evening just to find that it was sold earlier in the day by some Johnny-Come-Lately from NEW YORK CITY!!!??

I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that in general, I’m not too inclined to get very steamed about cardboard. If it was something I’ve been questing to find for decades, I’d be more likely to be distraught if I missed out, for sure. But probably not enough to tell anyone off.

How would you react, if you were on one side of this interaction, or on the other?

Oddly interesting topic and unfortunate initial post.

I kept reading to see if Phil responded with an apology, or some level of contrition for openly calling someone out and potentially damaging their reputation without having a shred of fact to back it up. Says more to me than anything on this topic.

I have had dozens of successful transactions on the BST both buying and selling and would not like someone questioning my ethics without proper cause. Did they all go perfectly, no, but we worked through anything behind the scenes like adults instead of whining to everyone on the board.

Bill

As I have said, my experiences on the B/S/T have all been a pleasure. But I am fairly certain that if shenanigans like having a deal in place, then someone offers to pay the seller more, and the seller then renegs, if that became known to Leon, pretty sure one or two things would happen. Seller would probably be warned to not ever do that again, or perhaps the seller would be given the boot to go peddle their trash elsewhere.

I'm not sure anyone here has or would advocate that is allowable. In fact, when it was brought up before, literally everyone who commented said it was wrong (and is a breach of contract).

And also the OP disappeared without a word. Just leaving those allegations out there after being proven wrong...Yet he's the one who brought up etiquette

I will reply to my wife or daughter to certain grievances they might have with the phrase "wouldn't it be easier to just let it go", to varying degrees of success.

Sometimes they will listen...and sometimes it will just end up getting ME in hot water with accusations of "minimizing" or "invalidating" their feelings.

Much like an internet chat board and most beaches or pools absent a lifeguard. Feel free to use at your own risk. ;)

Well now it's on page 3 of the thread. Go back to your law library, have a paralegal bring you your slippers and a martini, and calm down.

I'm not the one all worked up over a hypothetical that has universal agreement, so much that he felt it needed repeated on this page as well. :rolleyes:

Kudos to you! A man's word should be his bond.

:)

Just to beat a dead horse, back in the 1980s, when I was breaking vending cases by the hundreds, the typical way to sell was to mail out a pricelist to my regular customers in March (to take pre-orders which were estimated to ship mid-may, after the cards had been sorted,) and print ads in SCD and BHN. My partner & friend Carson Ritchey and I would go through the players we expected to be included in the sets, and come up with prices for them. The rookies were the tough ones to price, of course, but we did our best.

In May or early June of 1985, I got a call from a customer from North Dakota. His name was Brent Lee. He asked about Bret Saberhagen, who had been a little known rookie pitcher that I had priced at 7 cents. Brent said he'd take all that I had.

Given the dramatic shortcomings of having my pricelist printed in March, and the lead times for the SCD and BHN print ads, it was common for dealers to inform customers that prices, especially for rookies, was subject to change without notice. In other words, a dealer might publicly say he was offering Saberhagen rookies at 7 cents, but might very well not honor that price 3 weeks later when the customer called.

Anyway, I agreed to sell Brent all the Saberhagens I had, and a week later, when I'd gone through all my Royals boxes, I shipped him 1,400 odd cards, at 7 cents each, knowing by then they were selling hot at a dollar at shows.

Points being:
1. Circumstances can change between an offer and an acceptance, and changes can be made to offers reflecting this. Try responding to a print ad in a coin magazine in a hot bull market to see what I mean.
2. Once a deal is made, it's legally, morally, and ethically binding.

Word travels fast in this hobby, then as now, and backtracking on a deal does irreparable reputational damage. I think it's obvious, and everyone agrees, that is not the case here in this thread.

Yes, that's what many customers would say about stockbrokers back in the day!

It's interesting though. If you asked me now whether I should have become an actual stock broker many years earlier in the 1970's, I'd now say "Sure!" But if you asked me whether I'd like to be a stock broker now, I'd say "No!" Times have changed.

I understand that stock and futures (e.g. commodities) markets are about as pure and efficient markets as can exist. I'm also fully aware that other kinds of selling fall far short of these in terms of purity/efficiency. Unlike you though I find this situation to be sad.

:(

You can't possibly believe that to be true. It is the opposite of sad that a private sale of personal property is not as heavily regulated as the stock market. The last thing we need is more government interference in simple transactions.

I have stayed out of the conversation on purpose. The written rules on this forum are very unobtrusive on purpose.

If someone backs out of "a" deal, and no (hard) money was lost, then they probably aren't going to get the boot. It happens.

If it happens again, or very often, then that might change. But everyone gets a "grace" every now and then. The less rules the better!!! Which, I think, is different than most forums or groups. No one is going to force anyone to do anything. IF someone wants to sue someone over something, go for it. Net54baseball, like eBay, relies on Section 230 of the Federal Communications and Decency Act. I used to get all kinds of C and D orders and I almost always told the lawyer calling to F OFF and go read Section 230, then get back to me. None every did.

I'm curious. If
1. You had a unique item of a former player, let's say a vintage game used jersey
2. You list it for $1000, then go to a movie
3. When you return home, you have 2 people wanting to buy it. The first, timestamped at 7:30, is an auction house that will buy to flip. The second, timestamped a couple minutes later, is from the player's son. Turns out the player passed away the previous week and the family is in mourning.

Would you hold to your rigid, dogmatic principle of how pure and efficient markets should work (first offer to buy gets the cheese,) or take a more human approach?

I agree. We need no more government regulations. I'm arguing for a simple "A man's word is his bond" standard. That's effectively what's been in force in stock, bond and futures markets since late in the 19th century.

:)

This has nothing to do with a man's word being his bond. We all agree a man's word should be his bond (in fact, I've said a man's word can be a binding contract). This thread was about a situation where there had not been an agreement in place. No man's word had been given.

It's a topic that has gained traction. It's too bad if you don't like that. I really have nothing against you, so please don't take it that way. It's just that you come across as knowing everything about everything. That and you take a counter or contrarian view on anything and everything for whatever reason. Thus I take great pleasure in getting you all worked up. Just posting responses to get the last word in always proves I succeeded. I will now cease and decist lest I am held in contempt.

I have literally never been worked up on this site. You might want to try taking pleasure from something else, because judging someone's emotion over the internet is not for you.

Just because my view is often contrary to yours doens't mean I am taking a contrarian view. The irony is that most people in this thread have agreed with me. :rolleyes:

What always makes me laugh is when people like you tell others they are know-it-alls, when the reason you think that is because you think you know everything about everything. So when someone posts their position, you call them a know-it-all, not recognizing your own know-it-all tendencies.

I don't post to get the last word in. I just enjoy discussion. Just another misinterpretation on your part.

The real question is with 24 of the 125 posts did you get your point across yet or will it take another 20 or so?:eek::D:D:D

Depends if anyone wants to continue discussing it. This is a discussion board, if I'm not mistaken. :rolleyes:

I got my point across in the first post. Now I am just discussing a topic with fellow board members. Why is that a problem for you?:confused:

It's not like I'm just spamming replies. I'm only posting when others continue a discussion with me.

For the record, I appreciate your responses and agree with almost all of them. (not that it matters much)

Said 10,470 to 408.

Not a problem at all, post all you like. Like another member I get great joy in reading these threads. When one to three people have most of the posts in a thread trying to convince each other they are correct by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over it makes me smile.:)

Mark I have never claimed any of my 2.46 posts a day are anything special.:)

Man…I gotta find a way to catch up!

I don't believe any of us have been repeating the same thing over and over. As points are made, new nuance to the discussion is added. And those new points get discussed. It has nothing to do with convincing anyone of anything. It's just discussing a topic. I find it comical how many people shy away from any lengthy discussion mistaking it for something it isn't. If you aren't willing to engage those with different points of view, you'll never learn.

Ben, I appreciate every one of your posts. Just tweaking you for saying the other guy was posting too often.

What I have never understood (and this is nothing new here at all), is why people who aren't interested in a particular discussion just don't move on, but instead snipe at and sometimes mock the more active participants (as if THEY were somehow superior and above it all), criticize the number of posts, and completely mischaracterize the motives of the more active participants. As though they were being forced to read it.

In my opinion (aka whatever that's worth), if both offers are forum members, the timestamp rules. Uncomplicated rule for someone who tries to be fair, but uncomplicated.

...'go to a what?'

Agreed.

You and I have seen eye to eye twice today. I'm not sure how I feel about it. ;)

j/k of course. I always enjoy our discussions.

To me, having discussions with people who disagree, and having to articulate one's own views in response to other people's points, are how one learns. The world would be boring as hell if everyone agreed on everything. And yeah, the intolerance for discussion on a discussion board is just baffling.

Quick check on Gollum for his take:

That's how I was raised and continue to feel, even if it "wouldn't be financially prudent."

Just become more argumentative and you can post endlessly... :p

(And for the record, this is not a dig at BNorth, who has never seemed argumentative to me.)

Stop pretending, Peter. It's not a discussion. It's always a one way conversation when it comes to posts by you and the Ohio guy. What you two put out when you chime in and take over any thread is the final answer, etched in stone. About any subject. There's no discussion. You two know everything. All the world's problems could be solved, if only everyone agreed with you. But that's okay. It just is what it is.

Stop pretending. You think you know it all, and anyone making a point you disagree with is an argumentative troll who should stop posting. You're just a hypocrite who does the exact same thing you accuse us of. :rollseyes:

But you need to have the last word, so I know you'll respond.

See what I mean about certain people mischaracterizing motives? As if expressing an opinion is somehow intended to foreclose anyone else's, and to end discussion rather than to invite it? Weird.

-
#143 Posts and not a single card. Acquired this one on B/S/T.
-

I realize it wouldn’t go well, but I wish it wasn’t considered bad etiquette to rip people’s pricing when they ask too much for a card. Off topic I know.

agreed!!!!!

-
To quote the great Dione Warwick song "Just Walk on By".
-

acquired this off the bst many years ago!

A great singer. The perfect singer for many of the Bachrach/David hits.

-
Damn Pete, that's a BST mic drop.

"Yes, Dionne!!! At long last, I finally know the way!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Attachment 652631

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman’s terms, “first dibs.” Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

In a BST post, who is the offeree? For an offer to be binding upon acceptance, you need an offeree, as I understand it. Otherwise, like an advertisement, it's an invitation to treat/invitation to bargain. The specificity of the post is not the point.

I'll post the case law when I get a chance. I'm going to need to see your citations, because that is most definitely not the general principle of contract law. Only if there is a specific local statute that modifies the common law will that be the case, or if there is a specific term in the listing stating an intent to sell to the first taker. There is no "meeting of the minds" in your example that is required for a contract. Posting a listing to a broad, general audience does not put the seller in privity of contract with everyone who reads it. The buyer must express their intent to contract, and the seller must agree to contract with that specific person. In your example, the seller has never entered into contract with that buyer, and no contract was formed.

So how does this work then?????
 

"eBay sellers have control over who can bid on and buy their items. You can block individual buyers or set buyer requirements based on specific criteria.

If you’ve had an issue with a buyer and don’t want them to purchase or bid on your items, you can add them to your Blocked buyers list. They'll be unable to place bids or buy from you until you remove them from the list."

OK, OK, OK, but what if you were an Orangutan that really liked mangoes, but the Mars probe finds evidence of water ice somewhere other than the polar caps after I ran a red light, what then???

Here's some of the landmark cases:

Fisher v. Bell (1961) and Partridge v. Crittenden (1968) set forth the longstanding principle that posting or advertising an item for sale is an "invitation to treat" and not an "offer to sell."

The cases you are referring to are Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) and All Phases of Services Ltd v Johnson (2014). They suggest that what is usually an invitation to treat can become an offer to sell IF the advertisment clearly indicates and intent to be bound, and the intentions of both parties are clear and agreed upon, demonstrated through the conduct of the parties involved.

So as I said, posting a card for sale, with a price, is a invitation to treat and not an offer UNLESS the listing clearly states that the first person to accept will get the card.

thx phil...the bst used to be an incredible place back in the day!!!

Well, I don't know law and am not a lawyer, but that is not what this private forum's rules are. First dibs is almost always the case, but not always. Sellers here can sell to whomever they want to, or don't want to. They can even back out of a deal they said ok to. (as long as they don't make it a habit). Pretty simple.
.
.

I have been on both sides of this dilemna on the bst. There have been atleast 2-3 occasions where I underpriced cards significantly and they sold quickly...and I honored the prices as it was MY FAULT.

Additionally I recall a time where I won an autographed pete rose kahns weiner card on the auction page here...at a bargain price. The seller attempted to reneg as he was not happy with the selling price. The net54 goonsquad backed me up and the seller was "encouraged" to honor the deal.

50 shades of grey?