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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5
It's the opposite of poor terminology. It prevents this very situation. If the seller made the legal offer, since a contract becomes legal the moment there is offer and acceptance, a seller would be obligated to be in contract to any buyer that accepts their price. And that would be a terrible result, stripping owners of property of the freedoms they possess as the owner of that property.
Lawyers think their terminolgy through. Unfortunately, most others don't. 
P.S. It has nothing to do with terminology, as offer means the same in both circumstances. It's about application of that terminology. And the principle that a seller gives an invitation to offers when they sell something, the buyer makes an offer, and the seller chooses to accept, was not only well thought out, it was developed, and has been a longstanding principle, for hundreds and hundreds of years. It just works. The "etiquette" put forth here only works in a perfect world, and in spite of the delusion of some people, even a small community like this is not a perfect world. |