B/S/T Etiquette

[bk400]

Originally Posted by timn1

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....

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

I guess I too am in the minority, but I would have thought selling to the first taker was just basic civil behavior and common sense. Would not have expected all the resistance to that concept.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess I too am in the minority, but I would have thought selling to the first taker was just basic civil behavior and common sense. Would not have expected all the resistance to that concept.

+1

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I guess I too am in the minority, but I would have thought selling to the first taker was just basic civil behavior and common sense. Would not have expected all the resistance to that concept.

Try to play the moral superiority card all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there might be valid reasons why a person might choose to not sell to the first taker, and they shouldn't have to, nor does anyone have the right to question them. Maybe one day when a person who has proven to be a difficult buyer or a scammer is first taker on one of your cards your integrity will be put to the test. Then we'll see how strongly held your pharisaical convictions really are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Try to play the moral superiority card all you want. It doesn't change the fact that there might be valid reasons why a person might choose to not sell to the first taker, and they shouldn't have to, nor does anyone have the right to question them. Maybe one day when a person who has proven to be a difficult buyer or a scammer is first taker on one of your cards your integrity will be put to the test. Then we'll see how strongly held your pharisaical convictions really are.

I've qualified my opinion all along by saying there could be exceptional circumstances. Certainly a scammer would be one of them.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've qualified my opinion all along by saying there could be exceptional circumstances. Certainly a scammer would be one of them.

And I've said that generally speaking, there is no reason not to sell to the first in line.

But do you want to have to publicly answer questions if you do choose to sell to the second person? Should you have to? It seems to put you in a position to exercise LESS etiquette that way, given you might have to say something negative about a person you don't want to deal with, rather than just have it accepted that you have the prerogative to sell to whomever you want. We should all just respect that right, and not demand answers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And I've said that generally speaking, there is no reason not to sell to the first in line.

But do you want to have to publicly answer questions if you do choose to sell to the second person? Should you have to? It seems to put you in a position to exercise LESS etiquette that way, given you might have to say something negative about a person you don't want to deal with, rather than just have it accepted that you have the prerogative to sell to whomever you want. We should all just respect that right, and not demand answers.

If I didn't sell to the first offeror, I don't think I would owe the Board an explanation, no.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I didn't sell to the first offeror, I don't think I would owe the Board an explanation, no.

Sounds like we are in agreement then.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.



Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.



Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.



The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.



But Walmart does it anyway.

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.

[toledo_mudhen]

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.

Eggs are totally overrated ---- Can take em or leave em

[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?

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bk400

I think the principle is the same, but I can use the good lawyer's own example if it isn't as comically bad an analogy.

Imagine going to Walmart to buy eggs. You put a carton of eggs in your shopping cart and bring it to the register to check out. When you get to the register, the store manager decides not to accept your offer to purchase the eggs at the price stamped on the price tag. Instead, he takes the eggs from your cart and gives it to the lady behind you in line. And he accepts her offer to purchase instead.

Not sure how that would play out in your community, but I know how it would play out in mine.

The law doesn't impose a duty on Walmart to accept offers to purchase from the first customer who shows up with an offer at the stated price.

But Walmart does it anyway.

I guess the yolk(s) would be on her.