B/S/T Etiquette

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If I see a card with a sticker price on a dealer's table at a card show and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If a dealer sends me a price list for wax boxes and I call up and say I'll take 3, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a sweater with a price tag in a shop window and I walk in and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a list of coins for sale on a website (with prices) and I call up and say I'll take your 1943 steel penny, do I have a binding contract?

If I take a cereal box with a sticker price off the shelf in the grocery store and bring it to the check out counter, do I have a binding contract?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Has anyone ever sued someone for offering a card for sale and then not selling it to the person who claimed it?

[gabrinus]

*

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I see a card with a sticker price on a dealer's table at a card show and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If a dealer sends me a price list for wax boxes and I call up and say I'll take 3, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a sweater with a price tag in a shop window and I walk in and say I'll take it, do I have a binding contract?

If I see a list of coins for sale on a website and I call up and say I'll take your 1943 steel penny, do I have a binding contract?

Peter, your examples do not match the circumstances present here. The seller did not simply provide a price. He provided sufficient other terms such that he manifested an intent to sell to anyone who wanted to accept.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

The buyer always makes the offer in contract law. The seller always accepts.

Here is another legal statement that is so far off base it's actually funny. In reality (and in the law) the seller (or buyer) can make an offer or accept an offer. It depends on the circumstances.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

Peter, your examples do not match the circumstances present here. The seller did not simply provide a price. He provided sufficient other terms such that he manifested an intent to sell to anyone who wanted to accept.

What were those terms sufficient to manifest an intent to sell to anyone who would accept?

You keep saying that, but they have never been posted here. And the legal standard is a "clear statement of intend to be bound," not sufficient terms.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

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.

Unless there is a clear statement of intent to be bound, the law also agrees with Peter and I on that statement.

It's weird that you keep chiming in to make conclusory statements about the law, but never address the mountain of case law contradicting your conclusions.

[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 Musashi

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.

Well said.

[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?

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

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?

Yes, please consider me the chief of the message board police, at least when it relates to you. Now that was easy, no?