BST etiquette am I wrong

[gregndodgers]

My two cents from a contract law perspective. It appears to me that an important (I.e. “material”) payment term was not included in the seller’s initial BST post. Hence, his initial post was not an offer (which must include all material terms) that could be accepted (to form an actual agreement) with a simple “I will take it.” So seller is free to negotiate with anyone he wants, and sell to the first buyer able to satisfy all material terms. In other words, seller has no obligation to wait for any potential buyers to get back to him.

With all that said, there is a lot of confusion because contract law principles are not being followed on this board. I tried to warn some with my posts in that other thread. For example, some here believe the words “I will take it” seals the deal and binds the parties. That’s not always the case.

The key is the wording on the seller’s initial post. Does it leave out any material terms? If so, it’s not an offer. It’s an invitation to negotiate, and the buyer who is fastest to complete the deal gets the prize.

EDIT: for the layman, a term is “material” in a contract when it’s a condition that if not met, is a deal breaker for either party.

[Republicaninmass]

Any succesful lawsuits against ebay sellers and their "pricing mistakes"? If so, it could lead to a precedent, without it, I doubt anyone would feel obligated to keep their word, even if over a few lousy bucks.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

My two cents from a contract law perspective. It appears to me that an important (I.e. “material”) payment term was not included in the seller’s initial BST post. Hence, his initial post was not an offer (which must include all material terms) that could be accepted (to form an actual agreement) with a simple “I will take it.” So seller is free to negotiate with anyone he wants, and sell to the first buyer able to satisfy all material terms. In other words, seller has no obligation to wait for any potential buyers to get back to him.

With all that said, there is a lot of confusion because contract law principles are not being followed on this board. I tried to warn some with my posts in that other thread. For example, some here believe the words “I will take it” seals the deal and binds the parties. That’s not always the case.

The key is the wording on the seller’s initial post. Does it leave out any material terms? If so, it’s not an offer. It’s an invitation to negotiate, and the buyer who is fastest to complete the deal gets the prize.

EDIT: for the layman, a term is “material” in a contract when it’s a condition that if not met, is a deal breaker for either party.

You should post these legal critiques directly in BST threads. “This transaction between hobby friends violates contract law principles!” Cue Debbie Downer and the muted trombone.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

You should post these legal critiques directly in BST threads. “This transaction between hobby friends violates contract law principles!” Cue Debbie Downer and the muted trombone.

This particular transaction was fine ~ nothing was violated except the expectation of the buyer (due to the reasons I stated).

[D. Bergin]

Sadly for me, the stuff I post for sale isn’t in demand enough to spark legal arguments by prospective buyers, over who gets to buy it and who doesn’t.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Sadly for me, the stuff I post for sale isn’t in demand enough to spark legal arguments by prospective buyers, over who gets to buy it and who doesn’t.

Welcome to the club, I'm happy when I get one buyer.