Sorry I missed a lot of posts and am trying to catch up. Any developments relative to the original post since page 2?

Greg asked me to chime in again as this thread has gone in a few directions haha. Just to confirm again the original post and confirmed by the buyer of the cards. I sold the cards to the first person who dm’d me which was half hour before Phil posted and dm’d me with an offer. Cut and dry clear as day I gave it to the first person who asked. I know the rest of the thread is different scenarios but wanted to bring this up again. And Phil disappointed that you haven’t come back here to apologize after starting this thread but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

Right, and your post had a listed price, all the essential terms such that anyone who said “I will take them” would seal the deal. Hence no negations were needed nor contemplated.

Folks, an offer was made here not an invitation to treat for purposes of future negotiations.

The OP has posted in another thread but very smartly has stayed far far away from this one.

Now if we can get back to discussing Walmart, cases from another country, and cases from the 1800s.

You clearly need to re-read the case law on what it takes to turn an adverisement into an offer. You will specifically notice that "all the essential terms" of an agreement are not mentioned at all. Because it doesn't matter. What matters is a clear statement of an intent to be bound by the first person agreeing to the terms (see the Example 1 in Restatement 26 that "First come, first served" or some similar statement must be present, even if all the other essential terms are present.

You are way off here. You fall into the trap may laymen do in misunderstanding that just because your price or terms are not negotiable, doesn't mean it isn't an invitation to treat. Even a posted sale price in a shop window, where nobody would assume that price is negotiable, is held to be an invitation to treat, not an offer. READ THE CASE LAW! Your refusal to do so is telling.

I once had a very irreverent and not very good co counsel on a large case who was fond of saying, case law, cole slaw.

In other news, the weather sure is great in Los Angeles. Hope it is great in your neck of the woods!

Greg

Much of American basic contract law is actually derived from the English common law.

Just to be clear, because I went back and re-read the original post. Are you claiming the sale post specifically said that the first to post "I will take them" gets them? Because that was not mentioned in the original post.

If so, then as I've mentioned, that could turn an advertisement into an offer. But absent that, no amount of "essential terms" will accomplish that.

So no amount of capital letters will change the law that absent a clear statement of first come, first served, no offer was made by seller.

Regardless of this scneario, your initial post insinuated that any sale post containing all the essential terms of an agreement constitutes an offer. And that is just wrong. And it was that misstatement that I have been arguing against.

Right. Specificity is necessary but not sufficient for an "offer" to be binding on the offeror, in the case of an "offer" to the public rather than a particular individual.

Original post I made had a price. I received a DM saying I will take it. I told the person the cards are yours. Phil made a post and sent a dm 30 minutes later. I told him sorry I already sold the cards. My buyer confirmed and I have timestamps and screenshots to prove it. Very simple


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That could be true but the real question is does anyone think the junk wax era Randy Johnson card I posted a pic of will sell for 4 figures in the next 2 weeks? I will take the highest offer and not necessarily the first.:D

And it was your telling the person the cards were his that created the contract.

So greg is wrong. You didn't say in your post "first I'll take it gets it." No offer was made. I guess the capital letters didn't change the law. An advertisement, no matter how specific the essential terms, is not an offer absent that language. :rolleyes:

Correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think everyone is in agreement about when the offer and acceptance was made in this case, except Greg, who refuses to look at the case law.

So where is the Dental angle here I'm feeling left out?

If teeth get kicked in?

yes! when that happens call the net54 dentalsquad!

How about reading the entire thread is very similar to getting a cavity fixed without any pain meds.:rolleyes::D

This thread has strayed so far from the original post and its mention of etiquette that I’m not sure why I bother.

It’s acknowledged that the chances of any listing in the net54 B/S/T section leading to a lawsuit are negligible, so that most of what some lawyers here continue to scribe is best saved for lecturing Business Law students at the nearest community college. BTW, there is almost certainly an offer if a b/s/t listing contains all material terms and includes “first to say I’ll take it wins”. Because I have seen this expression used from time to time I trust sellers know the significance of using such language and that they might take heed of caveat venditor. Also, please know that the issue of whether a b/s/t listing is merely an invitation to treat or instead a binding offer can be a question of fact– not necessarily a slam dunk. So there you go net54 members, more legal nuggets for you to consider that have very little to do with etiquette or the practical functions of this forum.

Disturbing to me is some apparently accepted notion that nearly all b/s/t listings here are nothing more than invitations to make an offer, especially when all material terms are expressed in the listing. I believe Leon has stated that a forum member can back out of a deal once or twice but not often without consequences, since we all have things happen. But there is a difference between backing out of a deal and saying there was no deal in the first place. I understand the reluctance of having rigid rules or many rules at all for that matter in the b/s/t arena, but I would appreciate better guidance. Like most people here I could understand some unusual circumstances where I agree to all terms listed and am first to respond but don’t “win” the listing, but to suggest that most listings can be treated as insubstantial and unilaterally changed after someone says they will meet the terms does not instill market confidence, IMO, and certainly seems an affront to etiquette.

Todd I think your concern is misplaced. People want to sell their cards and legally obligated or not, the overwhelming number of sellers are going to sell to the first person who says I'll take it. In other words, the BST works fine in practice. And so does Walmart, even if as a purely legal matter it isn't obligated to fulfill its ads or sticker prices.

That said, I would agree that the usual rule of ETIQUETTE (not law) should be to sell to the first offeror absent a compelling reason not to.

love this! change filling to root canal for effect!!!!

+1

Which is what I have been saying.

Disturbing or not, that is the law. Even with all material terms expressed in the listing, unless it says "first to say I'll take it wins," (or some other clearly stated intention to be bound by anyone who accepts) it is nothing more than an invitation to make an offer under the law. Plain and simple.

Like Peter said, most agree that they will nearly always sell to the first person. But this becomes important when the first person is not someone you would want to do business with.

This is America 2025. Etiquette is passé.

I certainly understand (not the law part :)) what you are saying. IF I seemed to insinuate backing out of a deal, when no money has changed hands and/or the item hasn't shipped yet, is ok, it's not.
It's just that I feel giving a grace is the right way to do it. We are all super passionate. I had a board member crying over a deal one time. So, I let him undo it. It was a 30k+ deal too. He is still on the forum and is a good hobby friend. But I would have let anyone back out for the right reasons. Also, anyone who backs out of a legitimate deal will, at least get an infraciton on the forum. They aren't used often but they are for public viewing on anyone's profile. And, after thinking about it, if anyone backed out twice, without some extraordinary reason, they will be banned. Making a deal on the forum should always be followed through with. In my experience, it is very rare for someone to back out of deal on the BST. (other than a time-stamp dispute LOL, had to circle back)

I am on my 3rd bag of Shotwell Checkers Popcorn!

.

Then I guess I am wondering why there was a need to go on ad nauseum with discussions on the law when they have little to no practical application to the topic at hand. Belaboring them seems to imply that they should be followed here, when the rule of thumb is just the opposite.

Sometimes discussions just evolve and take on a life of their own, you know that.

Yeah, well in many instances discussions devolve too. Even though the fact pattern in the original post led to a pretty clear-cut answer, I believe there was plenty of fruit on the tree to discuss that was spoiled because of how the thread took on a life of its own, as you say.

First, some people enjoy discussing things. And that's ok. Even if it wasn't the original question.

Second, it might be the exception that someone would not sell to the first person, but if that first person is a known scammer on one of your listings, I bet you would be glad to have read this discussion. So discussing something that isn't the norm is helpful for those situations that arise that are outside the norm.

I would reserve "devolve" for threads that turn into ad hominem attacks and insults, that certainly has not happened here, just people explaining their positions on a subject that is at least tangential to the original question.

I’ll agree with Ohio on this one. It’s definitely been educational, if a bit tedious as times.

I can assure you I am not glad to have read this thread nor will I find it useful for any purposes here. You taught me nothing about the law and it is doubtful you ever will. I already was aware of the outlier situations that might cause someone to refuse a sale or purchase– I didn’t need a legal opinion to say I never had an obligation to perform in the first place, and I fully understand that circumstances can justify a transaction falling through whether legally binding or not. I would wager that most everyone here was similarly informed without being told they needn’t worry much about their b/s/t listings because absent exceptional circumstances they had the law on their side. IMO, you sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and kept pounding a nail into a board that was almost certainly never going to be used on the job, when there could have been meaningful discussion on how b/s/t listings could be generally improved or clarified. A wasted opportunity, but if others find it worthwhile, so be it.

Not sure why you bothered to read through the thread if you weren't interested in it or weren't finding it useful. Personally, I found it informative that including in a B/S/T listing something saying "First person to say I'll take it" could limit the options a seller has regarding who they sell something to.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine. ;)

But the fact is, there is a lawyer here trying to tell you that you do have an obligation to perform. So while you seem sure of yourself that you can never learn, nor need to, others might appreciate the fact that the other lawyers here have shot down that incorrect opinion with actual legal analysis.

I'm sorry you don't find it to be a worthwhile discussion. Based on your attitude, I'm not sure it would matter if it was anyway. You have no intention on seeing value in it. That's the beauty of a message board. You don't have to find a discussion worthwhile. You are absolutely free to move along and not read it or participate....

But here you are. :rolleyes:

I continue to be truly baffled by people who read through long threads that don't interest them, and then complain.

Question: who agrees with these statements...Besides Ohio and Peter of course?

Under those rules, which is not the law of contracts given the circumstances, there is too much uncertainty. The law is about certainty in the marketplace not ambiguity.

If I see a card with a sticker price on a dealer's table at a card show and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If a dealer sends me a price list for wax boxes and I call up and say I'll take 3, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a sweater with a price tag in a shop window and I walk in and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a list of coins for sale on a website (with prices) and I call up and say I'll take your 1943 steel penny, do I have a binding contract?

If I take a cereal box with a sticker price off the shelf in the grocery store and bring it to the check out counter, do I have a binding contract?

Has anyone ever sued someone for offering a card for sale and then not selling it to the person who claimed it?

Peter, your examples do not match the circumstances present here. The seller did not simply provide a price. He provided sufficient other terms such that he manifested an intent to sell to anyone who wanted to accept.

*

Here is another legal statement that is so far off base it's actually funny. In reality (and in the law) the seller (or buyer) can make an offer or accept an offer. It depends on the circumstances.

Unless there is a clear statement of intent to be bound, the law also agrees with Peter and I on that statement.

It's weird that you keep chiming in to make conclusory statements about the law, but never address the mountain of case law contradicting your conclusions.

What were those terms sufficient to manifest an intent to sell to anyone who would accept?

You keep saying that, but they have never been posted here. And the legal standard is a "clear statement of intend to be bound," not sufficient terms.

LOL, yeah, when you take statements out of context you can draw strange conclusions. However, I made it quite clear that I was talking about this circumstance (an ad on a message board), and I qualified it by stating that the only way that changes is if there is a clear statement of intent to be bound.

Keep cherry picking statements, and ignore the fact that your assertions of the law are dead wrong.

Hey look! I can do it to.

This statement is so far off based it isn't funny. It has no basis in contract law and is false. Material terms being included in a sales listing does not turn it into an offer. It must also include a clear statement of intent to be bound.

The complaint in this case (at least on my part) is that I have to read through a long thread of tangentially related law office water cooler talk to see if there's any new information about the original topic, which is what I came to the thread looking for.

I did not say I can never learn; in fact, I learn something in this forum most every day– just not from you. I have no problem with making a legal point, supporting it and moving on, although again, here your “free legal advice”, while perhaps interesting to some in a general to abstract sense, is very unlikely to influence any activity on the b/s/t because the law is really not the issue and no one here is going to court. Nonetheless, saying it one or twice in a thread that could benefit from other relevant input is fine– but revisiting it over and over for days is, in terms you can understand, exceeding your page limits, counselor. We get it, point made, move on, or if not, please understand and hopefully appreciate that some here find legal wrangling at length to be stifling if not boorish.

And just as you say that I could or should ignore this thread, so too can you ignore my posts. The topic of etiquette and protocol in b/s/t does interest me-- I didn't begin reading it for no reason. However, since this thread has essentially little chance of addressing any further what I was hoping to be a discussion of etiquette and protocol, such as how to properly handle or clarify listings where multiple card discounts are offered (oops, I mean invited), I will wait for another one to emerge down the road.