B/S/T Etiquette

[bk400]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

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.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bk400

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.

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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bk400

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.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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.

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?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bk400

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).

[Musashi]

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.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by bk400

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?

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?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by raulus

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?

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.