B/S/T Etiquette

[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

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I will say it one final time! THE SELLER HERE MADE AN OFFER THAT WAS ACCEPTED WITH A SIMPLE “I WILL TAKE THEM.”

No amount of foot stomping and appeals will change that conclusion.

Just to be clear, because I went back and re-read the original post. Are you claiming the sale post specifically said that the first to post "I will take them" gets them? Because that was not mentioned in the original post.

If so, then as I've mentioned, that could turn an advertisement into an offer. But absent that, no amount of "essential terms" will accomplish that.

So no amount of capital letters will change the law that absent a clear statement of first come, first served, no offer was made by seller.

Regardless of this scneario, your initial post insinuated that any sale post containing all the essential terms of an agreement constitutes an offer. And that is just wrong. And it was that misstatement that I have been arguing against.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Just to be clear, because I went back and re-read the original post. Are you claiming the sale post specifically said that the first to post "I will take them" gets them? Because that was not mentioned in the original post.

If so, then as I've mentioned, that could turn an advertisement into an offer. But absent that, no amount of "essential terms" will accomplish that.

So no amount of capital letters will change the law that absent a clear statement of first come, first served, no offer was made by seller.

Regardless of this scneario, your initial post insinuated that any sale post containing all the essential terms of an agreement constitutes an offer. And that is just wrong. And it was that misstatement that I have been arguing against.

Right. Specificity is necessary but not sufficient for an "offer" to be binding on the offeror, in the case of an "offer" to the public rather than a particular individual.