Wundercade
New member
There's only one rule:
1. You sell to whoever in the hell you want to sell to.
The End.
.
1. You sell to whoever in the hell you want to sell to.
The End.
.
Do you give first to respond "rights"?
- Thread starter joemagiera
- Start date
joemagiera
Thread Manager
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 1,095
Definitely no commitment on my part. I just (stupidly) happened to mention that he was the first to respond (this was in the email where I told him I sold/commited it to someone else). Dumb move on my part.
THANK YOU!
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.
I don't think you made a dumb move. Business is business.
Bottom line put up or shut up.
.50 worth here
ok why did you decide not to sell to the first guy?
Maybe you should put in your thread you will only sell to people who you dealt with previously??
If the guy was first and he says he will give you your asking price what was the issue? Try putting yourself in the buyers shoes and ask yourself how would you feel if this was done to you....
Just my worthless 2 cents...
+1
what does it matter?
Do I have to put in my for sale ad the 20 people who handle things like shit, the 10 who ship very slow, the 5 who are so stupid I think they have a 1st grade education, the 5 I think might be davez?
Last edited:
Ripweade
Active member
When I sell stuff, the first one in line is ALWAYS the first one to have dibs on an item. Even if the first person asks a question about the item but the second person says, "I'll buy ut," the first person still has first cracks at the item. If the first person has a question, I will reply to the second, third and so on people just that: Person A has a question, and if they pass on it, Person B has first chance at it.
After reading some of the replies in here, I wonder if I am now the only one hesitant to buy from people in here. Someone is selling a part I need, and even I am the first one to reply, I could get skipped over and the item sold to the next person just because they bought from the seller before? That's total BS. I just can't believe some people will sell by a "pick and choose" method because they can "sell to whoever they damn well please." Sorry, but that's just poor business ethics and it WILL come around to bite these elite sellers in the ass. Remember, Karma's a bitch.
It's not just the "fair" thing to do, it's the RIGHT thing to do. I've been told before that my way is a poor business way, but I could care less. I like to sleep well at night knowing that I did the right thing.
Bill
Last edited:
joemagiera
Thread Manager
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 6,186
- Reaction score
- 1,095
I posted it and the next time I came back to read my emails, I had a few emails, the first guy I had never dealt with before and didn't even recognize the name. One of the other responses, I'd dealt with before and everything always went fine, so I went with him.
I didn't put a "will only sell to people I've dealt with previously" in the post because that's not true. I'll sell to anyone, I just chose someone that I knew had a high probability of a no problem transaction.
I've been on the wrong end of this many times in the past. And to tell the truth, sure I would have liked to get the item, but I couldn't blame the guy for selling to a buddy versus me that he didn't know.
GameyMcGame
Well-known member
My rule is different:
1) Stand by my word
If I say 'first dibs gets it' in my ad, I'm standing by what I said. If the first buyer can't commit to a time to pick up by EOD, I'm onto the next person in the list.
SuperSprint
Well-known member
It's the decent way of doing it, but I won't go so far as "right" because it implies the other ways are immoral or "wrong". As long as you're open and consistent in your business practices, there is no "wrong" way as the buyer can always elect not to do business with you.
That said, holding an item for a buyer will get you burned. If it hasn't happened yet, count your blessings. Can't tell you how many times I've advertised an item (not just here) and held the item for the first "committed" buyer only to have him no-show. Then you contact #2, 3, etc that you declined and they have already bought elsewhere leaving you to re-advertise the item. After a few of those, it's first money in hand unless the buyer puts down a deposit sufficient to cover my expenses and aggravation if he bails.
JamBurglar
Well-known member
From a practical stanpoint, it makes sense to try to be clear about your intentions from the get go. That way people won't get bent out of shape.
Once you have an offer and an acceptance, you have a binding crontract. Technically, if your post is worded in a way that constitutes a legal offer, and then someone e-mails you saying "I accept your offer" (or something to that effect) then you have a legally binding contract. If you back out because you decide you want to sell to someone else then you're breaching the contract. The purchaser does not need to pay to make the contract, they would have a reasonable amount of time to pay you, and you would have a reasonable amount of time to send the item. The important thing for this conversation is that the contract forms upon their indication to you that they are accepting your offer.
The thing is, you're unlikely to get that sort of clean transaction in the real world and nobody is going to sue you over something like this. The technical legal breakdown is of little help, in my opinion. The important thing is that you let purchasers know that you're looking for offers on something you want to sell and that the first responder may not be the offer you accept. This sets up expectations in way that people are much less likely to get angry, and if they do get angry, it's on them because you were clear with them.
Once you have an offer and an acceptance, you have a binding crontract. Technically, if your post is worded in a way that constitutes a legal offer, and then someone e-mails you saying "I accept your offer" (or something to that effect) then you have a legally binding contract. If you back out because you decide you want to sell to someone else then you're breaching the contract. The purchaser does not need to pay to make the contract, they would have a reasonable amount of time to pay you, and you would have a reasonable amount of time to send the item. The important thing for this conversation is that the contract forms upon their indication to you that they are accepting your offer.
The thing is, you're unlikely to get that sort of clean transaction in the real world and nobody is going to sue you over something like this. The technical legal breakdown is of little help, in my opinion. The important thing is that you let purchasers know that you're looking for offers on something you want to sell and that the first responder may not be the offer you accept. This sets up expectations in way that people are much less likely to get angry, and if they do get angry, it's on them because you were clear with them.
LyonsArcade
Well-known member
If I was selling a car; and got 20 people calling me about it... then I found out my neighbor's pregnant wife wanted to buy it... or my brother wanted to buy it... you can bet your ass those first 20 people who called would be SOL because I'm going to sell it first to somebody I know every time.
Anybody who gets upset about that is pretty childish.
SuperSprint
Well-known member
"An oral contract isn't worth the paper it's written on..."
Also, legally binding contracts are generally predicated around the exchange of something of value. That's why it's common to sell a substantial item (like a car or gun) for a dollar instead of giving it away.
I think "unlikely" is a bit too optimistic. To legally pursue any breach of contract case you must be able to demonstrate you have suffered damages. Going to court and proving that you have suffered tangible damages because someone failed to sell you an item placed on the open market is a steep uphill battle. Doing so without a mutually executed written sales contract is folly...
Last edited:
LyonsArcade
Well-known member
Legally, you could also claim you never saw the p.m., even if they could prove that you got it, you could claim you didn't read it.
Failure to act cannot create a binding contract, btw. Also it's not true that if you offer something for sale, and somebody offers to buy it, that creates a contract. It does no such thing. Sellers reserve the right, legally, to sell to anybody they want. Also an individual can even go so far as to discriminate against someone for any reason! You can say you don't want to sell it to somebody because they're hispanic, or something equally as screwed up, and get away with it.
There's certain laws that limit that, like in real estate transactions, but most laws about things like that only apply to business with several employees. Someone selling something privately can sell it to whomever they want for whatever messed up reason they want.
Failure to act cannot create a binding contract, btw. Also it's not true that if you offer something for sale, and somebody offers to buy it, that creates a contract. It does no such thing. Sellers reserve the right, legally, to sell to anybody they want. Also an individual can even go so far as to discriminate against someone for any reason! You can say you don't want to sell it to somebody because they're hispanic, or something equally as screwed up, and get away with it.
There's certain laws that limit that, like in real estate transactions, but most laws about things like that only apply to business with several employees. Someone selling something privately can sell it to whomever they want for whatever messed up reason they want.
R3LL1K
Well-known member
Not me. If I was selling a car I would sell it to a stranger before selling it to a friend or family member. It's a lot less stressful and when the sale is done it's done. When you sell to a friend or family member they always seem to think a lifetime warranty is included.
JamBurglar
Well-known member
I tend to agree with the practice of selling to people you know and trust. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. It helps to be clear about that from the get go. And I don't think there's anything particularly horrible about not selling to the first person when nothing has been said about it.
Again, I only offered the technical legal breakdown for the purpose of discussion. There's very little practical value to it. BUT, since we're obvioulsy getting all nerdy and legalistic in this thread . . .
You're definately right on damages. In your average case like this, the purchaser has no damages. Even if there are damages, they are difficult to prove with reasonable certainty (which is almost invarably the standard you will have in the U.S. for proving contract damages.) The typical winning case of damages is where you have a fluctuating regulate market for goods. Wheat is a good example. Seller and Purchase enter into a contract to buy 1000 bushels of wheat at the market dictated rate of $4.00 per bushel. The seller defaults. The next day, the price goes to $5.00 per bushel and the Purchaser buys at that price. In such a case, the purchaser has been damaged in the amount of $1000. Arcade items just don't work like that. It's very difficult to value damages. Purchaser's best case would be that he had a contact for a $50 item, the seller failed to sell, and then purchaser had to go pay $75 to get the same thing. But that argument is weak as soon as you look into the the other deals out there (did one sell a weak later for $40.00?), the varying condition of the products (did one sell for $25 more because it was in better shape?) etc. It's a hell of a lot of trouble for $25.00. So, I think your legal analysis is right with damages.
However, oral contracts ARE binding unless there is a statute that says otherwise. Even then there are methods for enforcing the contract in certain circumstances. Oral contracts like this are enforced by judges every day. You'll see lots and lots of cases like this if you walk into a court (small claims or a court not of record) on any given day. These cases almost always come down to who the judge thinks is more believable. When the plaintiif tells the judge "we had an oral contract" its a poor response for the defendant to say "there was no written contract, he can't prove anything." Moreover, it would be rare to see a formal written contract for a transaction like this.
Furthermore, this isn't an oral contract situation. Everything here is in writing. You don't need a formal contract to have a contract. You just need an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. The offer is the orignal post. Acceptance occurs,at the latest, when the message is received in the sellers inbox (not when it's read.) The consideration is the exchange of promises. Giving some sort of minimal monetary consideration ($1.00 to secure a purchase contract on a gun, for instance) is really just an ancient relic of outmoded law. Modern case law makes it clear that the exchange of the promise to sell and the promise pay is adequate consideration. So, you have a binding contract, just no damages from the breach in most cases.
Obviously this whole legal discussion is pointless.
JamBurglar
Well-known member
I'd like to see your caselaw citations on this one.
LyonsArcade
Well-known member
Point taken, lol
LyonsArcade
Well-known member
Well, you seem to know a lot about the law. Show me a caselaw study where a guy sold an arcade game pcb to somebody, discriminated against another buyer, and was convicted in court over it.
Some shit is just common sense interpretation.
Some shit is just common sense interpretation.
