B/S/T Etiquette

[Peter_Spaeth]

Todd I think your concern is misplaced. People want to sell their cards and legally obligated or not, the overwhelming number of sellers are going to sell to the first person who says I'll take it. In other words, the BST works fine in practice. And so does Walmart, even if as a purely legal matter it isn't obligated to fulfill its ads or sticker prices.

That said, I would agree that the usual rule of ETIQUETTE (not law) should be to sell to the first offeror absent a compelling reason not to.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Todd I think your concern is misplaced. People want to sell their cards and legally obligated or not, the overwhelming number of sellers are going to sell to the first person who says I'll take it. In other words, the BST works fine in practice. And so does Walmart, even if as a purely legal matter it isn't obligated to fulfill its ads or sticker prices.

That said, I would agree that the usual rule of ETIQUETTE (not law) should be to sell to the first offeror absent a compelling reason not to.

This is America 2025. Etiquette is passé.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Todd I think your concern is misplaced. People want to sell their cards and legally obligated or not, the overwhelming number of sellers are going to sell to the first person who says I'll take it. In other words, the BST works fine in practice. And so does Walmart, even if as a purely legal matter it isn't obligated to fulfill its ads or sticker prices.

That said, I would agree that the usual rule of ETIQUETTE (not law) should be to sell to the first offeror absent a compelling reason not to.

Then I guess I am wondering why there was a need to go on ad nauseum with discussions on the law when they have little to no practical application to the topic at hand. Belaboring them seems to imply that they should be followed here, when the rule of thumb is just the opposite.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Then I guess I am wondering why there was a need to go on ad nauseum with discussions on the law when they have little to no practical application to the topic at hand. Belaboring them seems to imply that they should be followed here, when the rule of thumb is just the opposite.

Sometimes discussions just evolve and take on a life of their own, you know that.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sometimes discussions just evolve and take on a life of their own, you know that.

Yeah, well in many instances discussions devolve too. Even though the fact pattern in the original post led to a pretty clear-cut answer, I believe there was plenty of fruit on the tree to discuss that was spoiled because of how the thread took on a life of its own, as you say.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Yeah, well in many instances discussions devolve too. Even though the fact pattern in the original post led to a pretty clear-cut answer, I believe there was plenty of fruit on the tree to discuss that was spoiled because of how the thread took on a life of its own, as you say.

I would reserve "devolve" for threads that turn into ad hominem attacks and insults, that certainly has not happened here, just people explaining their positions on a subject that is at least tangential to the original question.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Then I guess I am wondering why there was a need to go on ad nauseum with discussions on the law when they have little to no practical application to the topic at hand. Belaboring them seems to imply that they should be followed here, when the rule of thumb is just the opposite.

First, some people enjoy discussing things. And that's ok. Even if it wasn't the original question.

Second, it might be the exception that someone would not sell to the first person, but if that first person is a known scammer on one of your listings, I bet you would be glad to have read this discussion. So discussing something that isn't the norm is helpful for those situations that arise that are outside the norm.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

First, some people enjoy discussing things. And that's ok. Even if it wasn't the original question.

Second, it might be the exception that someone would not sell to the first person, but if that first person is a known scammer on one of your listings, I bet you would be glad to have read this discussion. So discussing something that isn't the norm is helpful for those situations that arise that are outside the norm.

I’ll agree with Ohio on this one. It’s definitely been educational, if a bit tedious as times.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

First, some people enjoy discussing things. And that's ok. Even if it wasn't the original question.

Second, it might be the exception that someone would not sell to the first person, but if that first person is a known scammer on one of your listings, I bet you would be glad to have read this discussion. So discussing something that isn't the norm is helpful for those situations that arise that are outside the norm.

I can assure you I am not glad to have read this thread nor will I find it useful for any purposes here. You taught me nothing about the law and it is doubtful you ever will. I already was aware of the outlier situations that might cause someone to refuse a sale or purchase– I didn’t need a legal opinion to say I never had an obligation to perform in the first place, and I fully understand that circumstances can justify a transaction falling through whether legally binding or not. I would wager that most everyone here was similarly informed without being told they needn’t worry much about their b/s/t listings because absent exceptional circumstances they had the law on their side. IMO, you sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and kept pounding a nail into a board that was almost certainly never going to be used on the job, when there could have been meaningful discussion on how b/s/t listings could be generally improved or clarified. A wasted opportunity, but if others find it worthwhile, so be it.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I can assure you I am not glad to have read this thread nor will I find it useful for any purposes here. You taught me nothing about the law and it is doubtful you ever will. I already was aware of the outlier situations that might cause someone to refuse a sale or purchase– I didn’t need a legal opinion to say I never had an obligation to perform in the first place, and I fully understand that circumstances can justify a transaction falling through whether legally binding or not. I would wager that most everyone here was similarly informed without being told they needn’t worry much about their b/s/t listings because absent exceptional circumstances they had the law on their side. IMO, you sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and kept pounding a nail into a board that was almost certainly never going to be used on the job, when there could have been meaningful discussion on how b/s/t listings could be generally improved or clarified. A wasted opportunity, but if others find it worthwhile, so be it.

Not sure why you bothered to read through the thread if you weren't interested in it or weren't finding it useful. Personally, I found it informative that including in a B/S/T listing something saying "First person to say I'll take it" could limit the options a seller has regarding who they sell something to.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I can assure you I am not glad to have read this thread nor will I find it useful for any purposes here. You taught me nothing about the law and it is doubtful you ever will. I already was aware of the outlier situations that might cause someone to refuse a sale or purchase– I didn’t need a legal opinion to say I never had an obligation to perform in the first place, and I fully understand that circumstances can justify a transaction falling through whether legally binding or not. I would wager that most everyone here was similarly informed without being told they needn’t worry much about their b/s/t listings because absent exceptional circumstances they had the law on their side. IMO, you sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and kept pounding a nail into a board that was almost certainly never going to be used on the job, when there could have been meaningful discussion on how b/s/t listings could be generally improved or clarified. A wasted opportunity, but if others find it worthwhile, so be it.

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine.

But the fact is, there is a lawyer here trying to tell you that you do have an obligation to perform. So while you seem sure of yourself that you can never learn, nor need to, others might appreciate the fact that the other lawyers here have shot down that incorrect opinion with actual legal analysis.

I'm sorry you don't find it to be a worthwhile discussion. Based on your attitude, I'm not sure it would matter if it was anyway. You have no intention on seeing value in it. That's the beauty of a message board. You don't have to find a discussion worthwhile. You are absolutely free to move along and not read it or participate....

But here you are.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I continue to be truly baffled by people who read through long threads that don't interest them, and then complain.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seller is free to sell to whomever they want. Listing a card for sale is an invitation to field offers. There is no priority for making the first offer. They are free to pass and sell to the next offer. Buyers are not entitled to, nor should they have any right to buy a seller's card. As long as the seller is not rude about it, it is perfectly fine to say, "Sorry, but someone else had a better offer." Until a seller accepts your offer, you have no more right to the card as anyone else.

Question: who agrees with these statements...Besides Ohio and Peter of course?

Under those rules, which is not the law of contracts given the circumstances, there is too much uncertainty. The law is about certainty in the marketplace not ambiguity.

[Musashi]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I continue to be truly baffled by people who read through long threads that don't interest them, and then complain.

The complaint in this case (at least on my part) is that I have to read through a long thread of tangentially related law office water cooler talk to see if there's any new information about the original topic, which is what I came to the thread looking for.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Well aren't you a ray of sunshine.

But the fact is, there is a lawyer here trying to tell you that you do have an obligation to perform. So while you seem sure of yourself that you can never learn, nor need to, others might appreciate the fact that the other lawyers here have shot down that incorrect opinion with actual legal analysis.

I'm sorry you don't find it to be a worthwhile discussion. Based on your attitude, I'm not sure it would matter if it was anyway. You have no intention on seeing value in it. That's the beauty of a message board. You don't have to find a discussion worthwhile. You are absolutely free to move along and not read it or participate....

But here you are.

I did not say I can never learn; in fact, I learn something in this forum most every day– just not from you. I have no problem with making a legal point, supporting it and moving on, although again, here your “free legal advice”, while perhaps interesting to some in a general to abstract sense, is very unlikely to influence any activity on the b/s/t because the law is really not the issue and no one here is going to court. Nonetheless, saying it one or twice in a thread that could benefit from other relevant input is fine– but revisiting it over and over for days is, in terms you can understand, exceeding your page limits, counselor. We get it, point made, move on, or if not, please understand and hopefully appreciate that some here find legal wrangling at length to be stifling if not boorish.

And just as you say that I could or should ignore this thread, so too can you ignore my posts. The topic of etiquette and protocol in b/s/t does interest me-- I didn't begin reading it for no reason. However, since this thread has essentially little chance of addressing any further what I was hoping to be a discussion of etiquette and protocol, such as how to properly handle or clarify listings where multiple card discounts are offered (oops, I mean invited), I will wait for another one to emerge down the road.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I did not say I can never learn; in fact, I learn something in this forum most every day– just not from you. I have no problem with making a legal point, supporting it and moving on, although again, here your “free legal advice”, while perhaps interesting to some in a general to abstract sense, is very unlikely to influence any activity on the b/s/t because the law is really not the issue and no one here is going to court. Nonetheless, saying it one or twice in a thread that could benefit from other relevant input is fine– but revisiting it over and over for days is, in terms you can understand, exceeding your page limits, counselor. We get it, point made, move on, or if not, please understand and hopefully appreciate that some here find legal wrangling at length to be stifling if not boorish.

And just as you say that I could or should ignore this thread, so too can you ignore my posts. The topic of etiquette and protocol in b/s/t does interest me-- I didn't begin reading it for no reason. However, since this thread has essentially little chance of addressing any further what I was hoping to be a discussion of etiquette and protocol, such as how to properly handle or clarify listings where multiple card discounts are offered (oops, I mean invited), I will wait for another one to emerge down the road.

Maybe you can't learn anything from me, but there have already been comments in this thread saying they have learned useful information regarding b/s/t activity, including the forum owner of the forum. So get off your high horse.

Second, I only posted in this thread in response to other posts. I did not come here and say the same thing over and over. I responded to specific posts with a specific response to that post. When someone repeatedly comes here and gives incorrect legal advice, just posting once and moving on does nothing to address the repeated posts containing inaccurate information.

But next time I am trying to figure out how many times I can post in response to someone else's post I'll be sure to ask the message board police what the post limit is. I assume you are the chief of that department?