[gregndodgers]

FACTS

A member posted that he had “a few pre-war cards available for sale. Prices are listed below, PayPal (F&F preferred) or Venmo accepted.” This person then provided a description of each card, the sale price, and a photo of each card.

LAW

“An offer is the manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.”Restatement Second of Contracts § 24

“An invitation to treat is an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed.”
Burrows, A. (2009) [2007]. "Offer and Acceptance". A Casebook on Contract (2nd ed.). Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. p. 5.

ANALYSIS

In this case, the net54 member who initiated the sale of several cards showed a willingness to enter into a bargain (I.e. an agreement) when he stated he had some cards for sale and then provided essential terms such that any other member who decided to purchase them would believe that his assent (i.e. acceptance) to that bargain would close the deal (i.e. bind the two parties) in the sale of certain card or cards. Hence, the member who initiated the sale with his B/S/T post made an offer that was accepted by another party. A third member believed that the offeror (I.e. the seller) had engaged in some type of bias against him, but the seller explained that he had sold the cards to the first party who assented to the offer. This scenario outlines basic contracts 101, and once another party assented to the offer, the deal was closed such that the two parties were bound in contract and hence no third party who manifested their assent later could also accept because there can only be one acceptance per the second restatement.

My initial post on this matter was mainly in response to two statements I had read regarding this situation. First, it was said that the seller could choose who to sell to. However, as I have shown, the second restatement does not allow that. Once there has been a valid offer and a valid acceptance (as was the case here), the sale was binding. Next, it was stated that the seller had not made an offer and instead had made an “invitation to treat,” which is an invitation to enter negotiations (on the essential terms of the sale.). In my opinion, the seller here did not intend to enter negotiations. Rather, he wanted another party to assent to the deal (I.e. accept the essential terms) without any further negotiations on essential terms.

Anyway, this is my position from a legal perspective. If Leon has other rules or sees it different, than that’s his prerogative.

EDIT: others may disagree with this opinion, and that’s fine. I don’t take it personally. The law is complex.