"Welching," "Backing Out" and "Rescinding" Offers = Lying

C

cowboyarcher

Feedback: +28 / =0 / -0
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
260
Hi Guys,

Unfortunately I've had the above happen three times lately on BF. Someone will post or send an unconditional "I'll take it," only to later decide they are not going to complete the purchase for some of any number of reasons. When some unconditionally posts, "I'll take it," they are agreeing to buy it at the listed purchase price, even to their own harm.

Just a few thoughts:

- If you need out of a deal, ask the seller if you may back out. Don't just tell him. You are bound legally and morally to complete the deal, so it really is the sellers decision to let you back out.

- If it were possible to disable the edit feature on replies in the sale area, that seems like it would be helpful here. It would not allow the offenders to simply, "Rescind," their "offer." Accountability is what I have in mind

- If the buyer and seller have not come to an agreement yet, then with party is free to walk away at any time.

- If an agreement is reached and the buyer breaks that agreement for whatever reason, this is called lying. Don't lie.

Anyhow, I'll stop ranting. Let's me honest and accountable folks, even if it is to our own harm.

Have a blessed Sunday everyone,

Adam
 
It sucks no doubt. Honestly, if they are a flake I'd be glad it went no further than backing out. Avoid a lot of headaches having not shipped and gotten into something worse imo
 
I have done this before, although not here. The reason people jump in with "I'll take it" and then ask questions is that I've often seen "I have a question" or "Dibs pending a question" or any such similar thing, only to be followed by someone else saying "I'll take it" and then the seller saying "sold".
There needs to be some give and take on both sides.
Buyers should not say I'll take it unless they really intend to. If it is dependent on something else they should communicate that to the seller. Sellers should allow the first to respond some time to have questions answered before selling to the next buyer with no questions.
 
All kinds of stuff happens. Just because someone has to back out of a deal, doesn't make them a liar. It does not make them morally or legally dishonest. It's only a knife buddy!
 
Last edited:
Legally?

I always ask questions first so im sure the specs or my criteria is met before committing to purchase. I also see that as an im interested but could you please answer a few questions first. I call that proper etiquette and its funny how some don't see it that way.

I also agree with rma100.
 
cowboyarcher said:
You are right, I should have said "maybe legally".
Click to expand...

Nope. It has nothing to do with legalities. Does it suck? Of course. It happens enough that I don't consider an item sold until it is paid for. Unless I am dealing with a long standing member who is not here just to buy and sell I will not mark it SPF after an "I'll take it". Once the item is paid for I will mark it sold. I do nothing until it is paid for.
 
Don't say it if you don't mean it. If you say "I'll take it" then take it, as advertised and priced. If you say "First 'I'll take it' gets it" then sell to whoever says "I'll take it" first. There is no other valid meaning for these groups of words. If you want wiggle room buy larger underwear.
 
Last edited:
Issues of honor and courtesy aside, "I'll take it" is, in all fifty states, an offer to purchase - an offer to enter into a contract.

Until the seller accepts the offer to purchase, there is no legally binding contract. So if the offeror takes back his offer to purchase before the seller has accepted the offer by word or conduct (such as by shipping the item), there is no contract.

This, by the way, is the reason why a seller controls whether there is a contract or not. The seller can simply not accept the offer to purchase, as has been so often observed in this forum.
 
- If it were possible to disable the edit feature on replies in the sale area, that seems like it would be helpful here. It would not allow the offenders to simply, "Rescind," their "offer." Accountability is what I have in mind
Click to expand...

IMO, editing of any and all statements should be stopped. Why is editing allowed, yet BF will not remove false post and trash from threads. Also it would FORCE members to think more and type less. Often members will post items that should cause reasonable doubt or have them banned or punished, only for them to edit their post after causing all sorts of trouble with threads. Members should be held accountable, regardless of their desire to edit, of weasel out of a statement. Editing also eliminates a "record" of members history of flaking out on deals and interrupting the Exchange process.
 
treeshaker said:
IMO, editing of any and all statements should be stopped. Why is editing allowed, yet BF will not remove false post and trash from threads. Also it would FORCE members to think more and type less. Often members will post items that should cause reasonable doubt or have them banned or punished, only for them to edit their post after causing all sorts of trouble with threads. Members should be held accountable, regardless of their desire to edit, of weasel out of a statement. Editing also eliminates a "record" of members history of flaking out on deals and interrupting the Exchange process.
Click to expand...

Mods have access to edit history.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Issues of honor and courtesy aside, "I'll take it" is, in all fifty states, an offer to purchase - an offer to enter into a contract.

Until the seller accepts the offer to purchase, there is no legally binding contract. So if the offeror takes back his offer to purchase before the seller has accepted the offer by word or conduct (such as by shipping the item), there is no contract.

This, by the way, is the reason why a seller controls whether there is a contract or not. The seller can simply not accept the offer to purchase, as has been so often observed in this forum.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're a lawyer or not (doesn't really matter), but this analysis is a little bit off base. An internet sales post can constitute a "binding offer" that if accepted creates a contract. Not always, but it can. The key is the distinction between binding offers and invitations to others to make offers to buy. Section III of this law review article has a pretty good background: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=mlr
 
Last edited:
craytab said:
Nope. It has nothing to do with legalities. Does it suck? Of course. It happens enough that I don't consider an item sold until it is paid for. Unless I am dealing with a long standing member who is not here just to buy and sell I will not mark it SPF after an "I'll take it". Once the item is paid for I will mark it sold. I do nothing until it is paid for.
Click to expand...

This is the second time I've seen you making an incorrect statement about the law. Please, for the sake of others on Blade Forums, stop spreading incorrect information. Just stick to what you know about--I'm sincerely asking.
 
Nature of collecting and dealing with certain folks
Things happen..Life stuff--Work stuff--Emergencies etc..
I truly believe its simply a matter of miscommunication or dumb luck
in my honest opinion..I am finding it hard too believe this has happened ""3""
particular times for you..and its all the other folks fault..Just saying.
BUT as we all know..In BF...Some you win..Some you lose..
And so well put earlier.. This IS NOT about the law..This is a Collectors Forum
We hang out.. Get lost in looking around and chatting with friends we have made.
OF COURSE it sucks if we miss or lose out on a blade or other item we wanted
or a sale too someone..But it is only a knife..or another material item..
In the BIG picture..Respectfully...It happens.. You ranted.. Now we go forward to conquer
another sale or a blade..
I wish you luck in BF.. I simply suggest to walk thru all aspects before resorting to this

Keith
 
brancron said:
I don't know if you're a lawyer or not (doesn't really matter), but this analysis is a little bit off base. An internet sales post can constitute a "binding offer" that if accepted creates a contract. Not always, but it can. The key is the distinction between binding offers and invitations to others to make offers to buy. Section III of this law review article has a pretty good background: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3454&context=mlr
Click to expand...



Brother brancon, you cited a law review article by a law student that supports my analysis, although only in a general sense.

The case analyzed in the article dealt with a published advertisement by a merchant. We know the solicitation of an offer - as that was what it was ultimately held to be - was by a merchant because the author says so, the facts of the case indicate as much, and the author also cites the Uniform Commercial Code section on sales by merchants. The common law of contracts has been altered by statute (the UCC) with respect to transactions by merchants.

Thus, the case reviewed in the article, Leonard v. PepsiCo, is not squarely on point. However, the article does cite the general rule upon which I rely, namely:

The Restatement (Second) of Contracts explains the general rule that advertisements are not ordinarily recognized as offers to sell. For an advertisement to become an offer, it either has to contain specific language that commits the advertiser to making an offer or language that invites a consumer to act without further communication between the parties. Courts adhering to this principle usually hold that advertisements do not constitute offers, but rather are invitations to solicit offers.
Click to expand...

In the case reviewed, even though the defendant was a merchant had widely published its advertisement, the court dismissed the case:
In Leonard v. PepsiCo,' a New York district court considered whether the advertisement published by PepsiCo was an offer or merely an advertisement.'" The court based its decision on the general rule that advertisements do not constitute offers, Citing the Restatement (Second) of Contracts,'" the court stated that "[a]dvertisements ... are not ordinarily intended or understood as offers to sell.'
Click to expand...

So even were we dealing with a merchant in this thread or with a public advertisement, as opposed to a post in a private forum that has membership requirements for such activities, the law review article and the case it reviews doe not stand against the general rule set forth in the Restatement.

Were it otherwise, the oft-cited "rule" at BF that a seller can decline to sell would be contrary to law.

Having said the above, I bet that there are fact patterns that proof the rule. Just not in this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top