B/S/T Etiquette

Mark17 · #1 02-25-2025, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

As a lawyer who has negotiated multimillion dollar deals and is pretty well versed in contract law, I have to disagree with some of the posts on this thread. If a post is made (such as the one made here) that advertises specific cards for sale and that post includes the material terms of the sale, which besides a description of the item for sale, typically includes the sale price including shipping and handling, and the method of payment, then that is the offer, and the first to accept those terms is the rightful buyer and has, in layman�s terms, �first dibs.� Absent a good reason, an individual cannot simply choose whom to sell to.

Greg

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

OhioLawyerF5 · #2 02-25-2025, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

Because he doesn't understand the difference between including terms of sale in your ad and including terms clearly evidencing an intent to be bound by the sales listing. Those are vastly different things.

gregndodgers · #3 02-25-2025, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark17

Why is it then, that thousands upon thousands of real estate transactions settle at amounts greater than the listing price? I'm sure many of them include the material terms of sale (as-is, up-front deposit, balance at close, buyer pays normal buying fees, title transfer, etc.)

Some real estate transactions involve millions of dollars. Why don't we hear of widespread lawsuits, and why would the transaction price ever be higher than the list price? According to you, first buyer to offer full ask gets it, period. No need for him to go above that figure, and futile for a subsequent offer.

Or does the law trteat real estate as a separate animal (and if so, why?)

For a multitude of reasons, one cannot compare the contractual process, including the legal rights and duties, of selling a home to selling a baseball card. Obviously, a home and any sale of a home are much more complex transactions. Hence, an MLS listing is generally not an offer but information about a home that is treated as an invitation to make an offer.

gregndodgers · #4 02-25-2025, 08:11 PM

Look, you guys can do whatever you like. I�m simply offering my legal opinion that you can accept or not. LoL.

jayshum · #5 02-25-2025, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Look, you guys can do whatever you like. I�m simply offering my legal opinion that you can accept or not. LoL.

Interesting how different your legal opinion is from another lawyer also posting in this thread.

OhioLawyerF5 · #6 02-25-2025, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayshum

Interesting how different your legal opinion is from another lawyer also posting in this thread.

And how his hasn't been supported by any statutes or case law.

Mark17 · #7 02-25-2025, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And how his hasn't been supported by any statutes or case law.

Another reason I think your position might have more validity than his is the concept of time. For instance, let's say someone offers a Dick Allen rookie card at a certain price. It goes unsold for a few days, then he's elected to the Hall of Fame, and suddenly several offers come in. Would the seller be compelled to sell at his listed (pre HOF) price?

When I was a kid, I got a coin collector magazine. One of the ads offered silver Franklin half dollars at a certain price. I ordered 10 of them, but had my check returned with a note saying the price had gone up. Again, that scenario seems to fit with your position rather than that of the other lawyer.

Something can be offered for sale at a stated price, but it isn't a contract until both parties agree it's a mutually agreed upon deal.

gregndodgers · #8 02-25-2025, 11:16 PM

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.

Peter_Spaeth · #9 02-25-2025, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

And how his hasn't been supported by any statutes or case law.

There are of course countless issues where courts have reached different conclusions, or different jurisdictions have different rules, but this isn't one of them, it's pretty much Contracts 101.

OhioLawyerF5 · #10 02-26-2025, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

There are of course countless issues where courts have reached different conclusions, or different jurisdictions have different rules, but this isn't one of them, it's pretty much Contracts 101.

Agreed. I just don't get what his deal is. This very issue is pounded into every law student's head from day one. I mean, the professors use examples exactly like this one to make the point. This is an unambiguous issue. Pretending like extreme exceptions where a contract is found are the rule is just bad practice.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BST etiquette	Flintboy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	51	01-01-2023 07:47 PM
B/S/T etiquette question	pokerplyr80	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	05-16-2016 10:33 PM
Ebay etiquette	celoknob	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	03-19-2010 11:15 PM
Question about B/S/T etiquette	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	22	05-23-2008 12:53 PM
forum etiquette	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	04-23-2004 10:35 AM