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

Buyers shouldn't back out.
Sellers shouldn't bypass buyers for asking questions.
Buyers should only inquire if they are seriously considering the purchase.
Sellers should provide a detailed description and pics in every ad.

If ALL of these guidelines were followed it would be a much better place. Unfortunately sometimes sellers don't provide enough info, tire kickers ask too many questions, sellers begin to get frustrated and sell to the first "I'll take it" buyer, then buyers begin to post "I'll take it" just to reserve the item until they're sure it's what they want.

A little courtesy goes a long way is all I'm saying.
 
This is supposed to be fun. I haven't done business except for straight from custom makers for years here because the fun was replaced by too much BS.
I love this site but avoid the classifieds as a rule. Russ
 
Thomas Linton said:
Brother brancon, you cited a law review article by a law student that supports my analysis, although only in a general sense.
Click to expand...

I don't want to derail the thread too much, so I'll be brief. I wasn't disagreeing with your main point; I was just disagreeing with the statement "Until the seller accepts the offer to purchase, there is no legally binding contract" to the extent that it may have implied that an acceptance following a binding offer does not in any case create a contract. I referred to section III of that law review article just to give background on the nature of a binding contract versus that of an advertisement.
 
I think the rules are not off topic.

The point is that the offer was not "binding" so far as we can tell - no special language - just a routine solicitation of offers to buy. Things would have been binding if the OP got his acceptance in before the offer was rescinded. That result is consistent with the forum "rule" I have heard about repeatedly that the seller controls and selects whose offer he accepts - if any.

If you know what the rules are you can conduct yourself in ways that produce less chance of disappointment: "I prospectively accept the offer to buy from the first person to post these words in this thread: "I'll take it" with no words suggesting different or additional terms or conditions.
 
MercyfulfateXX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with this the first I'll take it bumps a person who says Email sent with questions Imo that shows a intrest in the item. And while the item question is being answered the fist guy to say I'll take it thinks he has dibs which imo is wrong just my 2 cents
 
When I ask for more information or pictures it's with the full understanding that an "I'll take it!" by someone else will bump me out of the deal. If someone asks me for more information I point out that if anyone posts "I'll take it!" our potential deal is out the window. Right to refuse is only to be applied to an offer from someone with questionable history.
 
brancron said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nope. You are wrong again Mr. Lawyer guy! You don't have to agree with me but you can't tell me I am wrong. Why not sue me if it so damn important to you!
 
Please holster your swords, gents. Thank you.

I believe a seller should, within reason and boundaries of the forum rules, deal with the offers. I recently ran into a similar unpleasant situation with first firm take it clause and refused the sale to a buyer who was arrogant, childish and impatient. Needless to say the first buyer who expressed interest had a few questions not a part of the sales thread.

I think a willingness to work it out goes a long way in a deal than mere pointing fingers at the sale conditions. As someone said above, its a knife after all!
 
choombak said:
Please holster your swords, gents. Thank you.

I believe a seller should, within reason and boundaries of the forum rules, deal with the offers. I recently ran into a similar unpleasant situation with first firm take it clause and refused the sale to a buyer who was arrogant, childish and impatient. Needless to say the first buyer who expressed interest had a few questions not a part of the sales thread.

I think a willingness to work it out goes a long way in a deal than mere pointing fingers at the sale conditions. As someone said above, its a knife after all!
Click to expand...

Wisely put, Choom....
Tire kickers and flakes are a part of sales. If one doesn't have the fortitude to act in an adult and appropriate manner concerning sales the perhaps selling isn't what they should be doing.
 
Last edited:
Karda said:
Wisely put, Choom....
Tire kickers and flakes are a part of sales. If one doesn't have the fortitude to act in an adult and appropriate manner concerning sales the perhaps selling isn't what they should be doing.
Click to expand...

This is a part of doing business on an Internet forum.

Sometimes people act the way you expect and hope they would, and other times they don't....it's just easier to leave some of the "morality" out of it when we're all just screen names.....sadly.....
 
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...

I am no Lawyer ( Did sleep at a Holiday Inn once) but there simply is no contract created by a buyer saying 'I'll take it". Further activity must then take place before the contract is born. Comes down to basic Offer, acceptance and then consideration. One one of the three is missing the contract is still an embryo.

If I say "I'll take it" I have still not created any legal requirement to buy it and the seller is not legally required to sell to me.

It is just flaky to say "I'll take it" and then back out........................

That's it I am done playing Perry Manson (sic)
 
wolfmann601 said:
I am no Lawyer ( Did sleep at a Holiday Inn once) but there simply is no contract created by a buyer saying 'I'll take it". Further activity must then take place before the contract is born. Comes down to basic Offer, acceptance and then consideration. One one of the three is missing the contract is still an embryo.

If I say "I'll take it" I have still not created any legal requirement to buy it and the seller is not legally required to sell to me.

It is just flaky to say "I'll take it" and then back out........................

That's it I am done playing Perry Manson (sic)
Click to expand...

Yup. There are so many holes in one particular lawyer's argument here. Nothing like a legal agreement between two parties who you can't even confirm the identity of. How in the hell does anyone know even the age of the buyer or seller? This is just common sense stuff. Any judge would laugh this garbage right out of court.

I would make damn sure any lawyer I consult with can see the BS in this legal discussion.
 
What if you said "I'll take it." And then, God forbid, your dog gets hit by a car? You gonna say "I committed to buy a knife. Dog will just have to die"? I didn't think so. Does this make you immoral? A liar? A Flake? I don't think so. Extreme example, but stuff happens is my point.
 
rma100 said:
What if you said "I'll take it." And then, God forbid, your dog gets hit by a car? You gonna say "I committed to buy a knife. Dog will just have to die"? I didn't think so. Does this make you immoral? A liar? A Flake? I don't think so. Extreme example, but stuff happens is my point.
Click to expand...

Do we assume the seller already accepted your offer before the dog got hit? If so, you could explain to the seller and ask him to let you out of the contract. He is more likely to be helpful than the electric company or the credit card company or anyone else you owe.
 
Is it practical to enforce a contract for $500, when breaking it causes nobody a loss?

EDIT: I mean to say, completely unkown people using pseudonyms, in different legal jurisdictions, bitching about breaking implied contracts, where no loss is incurred.
 
Thomas Linton said:
Do we assume the seller already accepted your offer before the dog got hit? If so, you could explain to the seller and ask him to let you out of the contract. He is more likely to be helpful than the electric company or the credit card company or anyone else you owe.
Click to expand...

Did you read the OP?
 
rma100 said:
What if you said "I'll take it." And then, God forbid, your dog gets hit by a car? You gonna say "I committed to buy a knife. Dog will just have to die"? I didn't think so. Does this make you immoral? A liar? A Flake? I don't think so. Extreme example, but stuff happens is my point.
Click to expand...

I had to bow out once, not the same circumstance, but I did have a reason. I politely explained to the seller that I was sorry, but had to withdraw my purchase offer. I was polite, the seller was polite, and no one's dog had to die. That's how adults should deal.
 
I have never seen so much legal blah in one place without a lawyer making $$$......

You guys are killing the entire legal industry with all this free legal advice/opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top