B/S/T Etiquette

[brunswickreeves]

Time for a card? Old Judge King Kelly! (Not mine, just a a quip based on discussion direction of this thread).

[bk400]

I've been looking for an excuse to post this bad boy!

[gregndodgers]

I have laid out my reasons for why it is my opinion that the seller here was making an offer to sell and not an invitation to treat (I.e. invitation to enter negotiations that could lead to a future sale). I will let the reader decide which position is correct, but in my mind, it is clear that the seller was making an offer that could be accepted by anyone who simply said “I will take it,” or something to that effect.

So the seller was making an offer here and not an invitation to treat. We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

But you could maybe point to a single case to support your point.

And interstingly, the "reasons" you laid out didn't address any of the actual legal authority I laid out for why your opinion is wrong. You conveniently ignore it, and post the completely wrong section of the Restatement on Contracts to support your position. All we got from you was "Trust me, I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts." (Which if it matters, I work on multi-million dollar contracts on a daily basis myself). That appeal to authority is comical, because it doesn't show you know more about this situation. It shows you are out of touch with how courts deal with informal agreements made over the internet, because you spend your time dealing with contracts that tend to have significantly more formalities involved.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Apologies if this scenario was raised. If a guy has a card stickered on a table at a card show, and I walk up and say I'll take it, do we have a binding contract? Uh.... no.

I read some of the case law. It completely reinforced my prior understanding. It seems clear that absent unusual language or circumstances, an "offer" to the public not made to a specific individual -- such as an advertisement, display, catalog, price list, etc. -- is uniformly considered an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The cases matter a GREAT deal.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Apologies if this scenario was raised. If a guy has a card stickered on a table at a card show, and I walk up and say I'll take it, do we have a binding contract? Uh.... no.

I read some of the case law. It completely reinforced my prior understanding. It seems clear that absent unusual language or circumstances, an "offer" to the public not made to a specific individual -- such as an advertisement, display, catalog, price list, etc. -- is uniformly considered an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The cases matter a GREAT deal.

Are you a lawyer?

[Musashi]

Sorry I missed a lot of posts and am trying to catch up. Any developments relative to the original post since page 2?

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

But you could maybe point to a single case to support your point.

And interstingly, the "reasons" you laid out didn't address any of the actual legal authority I laid out for why your opinion is wrong. You conveniently ignore it, and post the completely wrong section of the Restatement on Contracts to support your position. All we got from you was "Trust me, I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts." (Which if it matters, I work on multi-million dollar contracts on a daily basis myself). That appeal to authority is comical, because it doesn't show you know more about this situation. It shows you are out of touch with how courts deal with informal agreements made over the internet, because you spend your time dealing with contracts that tend to have significantly more formalities involved.

I’ve won many cases in court without citing to case law. It’s not necessary when the rules are clear, and here the restatement supports my position. Also those cases you cited in support of your position are not on point AND they are from ENGLAND. Can you cite any U.S. cases that are on point? Doubtful. The reason is that this area of the law is not difficult.

What constitutes an “offer” in contracts is not one of the more difficult concepts to learn, but you seem to be struggling with it counselor.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

the rules are clear, and here the restatement supports my position.

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

I once had a very irreverent and not very good co counsel on a large case who was fond of saying, case law, cole slaw.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I agree the rules are clear. However, it is a flat out false statement that the restatement supports your position. I quoted from section 26, which completely contradicts your entire point and is specifically applicable to these circumstances. Frankly, this is such a basic part of contract law that it's amazing to me that you are struggling with it. Further, if you are a lawyer, you could easily just look at the references listed in the Restatement. Maybe start with the very first case listed on Westlaw under Restatement 26, Craft v. Elder & Johnston Co, 38 N.E.2d 416. A situation very similar to this where a sewing machine was posted for sale in a newspaper. The court said the seller could "refuse to deliver machine to person tendering specified amount in payment therefore, for no contractual relation existed between advertiser and any person."

The cases go on and on on this point. You are simply mistaken on this area of law as it applies to these facts.

Ok, a lot late here, but as described, this, at least to me would mean that the law supports shady practices like bait and switch as being entirely legal.

Like "I don't have the $50 sewing machine but I have this one for $75"

One of the events the local K mart had back in the 70's was 7 cent day - or 77 cent day I forget which. Several expensive items advertised at that price. With the catch that only one was at that price. My friend insisted that we should ride our bikes to K mart, because they put pallets of those items on the sidewalk because they didn't want the fights inside.
Total madhouse, I'd guess more inventory was destroyed in the rummage for the one item and subsequent fights than any profit that they might have had. Think like 10 mini riots on the front sidewalk of the store.

[maniac_73]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I have laid out my reasons for why it is my opinion that the seller here was making an offer to sell and not an invitation to treat (I.e. invitation to enter negotiations that could lead to a future sale). I will let the reader decide which position is correct, but in my mind, it is clear that the seller was making an offer that could be accepted by anyone who simply said “I will take it,” or something to that effect.

So the seller was making an offer here and not an invitation to treat. We do not need to read any cases from England to know that.

Greg asked me to chime in again as this thread has gone in a few directions haha. Just to confirm again the original post and confirmed by the buyer of the cards. I sold the cards to the first person who dm’d me which was half hour before Phil posted and dm’d me with an offer. Cut and dry clear as day I gave it to the first person who asked. I know the rest of the thread is different scenarios but wanted to bring this up again. And Phil disappointed that you haven’t come back here to apologize after starting this thread but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by maniac_73

Greg asked me to chime in again as this thread has gone in a few directions haha. Just to confirm again the original post and confirmed by the buyer of the cards. I sold the cards to the first person who dm’d me which was half hour before Phil posted and dm’d me with an offer. Cut and dry clear as day I gave it to the first person who asked. I know the rest of the thread is different scenarios but wanted to bring this up again. And Phil disappointed that you haven’t come back here to apologize after starting this thread but it is what it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right, and your post had a listed price, all the essential terms such that anyone who said “I will take them” would seal the deal. Hence no negations were needed nor contemplated.

Folks, an offer was made here not an invitation to treat for purposes of future negotiations.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Right, and your post had a listed price, all the essential terms such that anyone who said “I will take them” would seal the deal. Hence no negations were needed nor contemplated.

Folks, an offer was made here not an invitation to treat for purposes of future negotiations.

You clearly need to re-read the case law on what it takes to turn an adverisement into an offer. You will specifically notice that "all the essential terms" of an agreement are not mentioned at all. Because it doesn't matter. What matters is a clear statement of an intent to be bound by the first person agreeing to the terms (see the Example 1 in Restatement 26 that "First come, first served" or some similar statement must be present, even if all the other essential terms are present.

You are way off here. You fall into the trap may laymen do in misunderstanding that just because your price or terms are not negotiable, doesn't mean it isn't an invitation to treat. Even a posted sale price in a shop window, where nobody would assume that price is negotiable, is held to be an invitation to treat, not an offer. READ THE CASE LAW! Your refusal to do so is telling.

[gregndodgers]

In other news, the weather sure is great in Los Angeles. Hope it is great in your neck of the woods!

Greg

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

Time for a card? Old Judge King Kelly!

Whoa, nice one!

[jayshum]

Time for another Judge's ruling on this case