APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED - Thread has de-railed!!

[jaybuck43]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

Your understanding of contract law is asininely wrong yet you spout off your knowledge as fact "I think that any tribunal..." So yes its upsetting to me (who spent years concentrating on studying contract/corporate/sales law) to listen to someone whose legal knowledge is based off watching some episodes of law and order (or maybe Perry Mason not sure how old you are) who thinks they know how the law works. Sadly for some reason everyone thinks they are a lawyer. Do me (and the other boardies who are attorneys) a favor and don't say things like "Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them" until you're actually admited to practice law in at least one state.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

[vaillant]

Billy Preston needs to read some Heraclitus.

[MCMiles]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

Your understanding of contract law is asininely wrong yet you spout off your knowledge as fact "I think that any tribunal..." So yes its upsetting to me (who spent years concentrating on studying contract/corporate/sales law) to listen to someone whose legal knowledge is based off watching some episodes of law and order (or maybe Perry Mason not sure how old you are) who thinks they know how the law works. Sadly for some reason everyone thinks they are a lawyer. Do me (and the other boardies who are attorneys) a favor and don't say things like "Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them" until you're actually admited to practice law in at least one state.

 

Ok, IMO, Dan entered into two contracts. One with Tranny and one with Joey.

 

 

 

[thirdgreenham]

Why would someone step away for 10 minutes in the middle of a negotiation?

 

This, especially on a high ticket item.

 

3 kids? A wife yelling "Are you on those stoopid comic book forums again? We've got company coming over in less than 30 minutes and the place is still a mess! And you've somehow got time to sit and chat with your online friends?"

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

Your understanding of contract law is asininely wrong yet you spout off your knowledge as fact "I think that any tribunal..." So yes its upsetting to me (who spent years concentrating on studying contract/corporate/sales law) to listen to someone whose legal knowledge is based off watching some episodes of law and order (or maybe Perry Mason not sure how old you are) who thinks they know how the law works. Sadly for some reason everyone thinks they are a lawyer. Do me (and the other boardies who are attorneys) a favor and don't say things like "Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them" until you're actually admited to practice law in at least one state.

 

What are you doing?!?!? Haven't you learned anything here?!?!? He challenged your knowledge and made you look a fool.

 

Now you need to write a dissertation about why and how you know more than he does. Then once he proves you are an insufficiently_thoughtful_person you need to tell him to stop trolling you. Then in ten years you need to respond to everything he writes and demand he stop trolling you.

 

This is CG- we don't laugh at ourselves!

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Why would someone step away for 10 minutes in the middle of a negotiation?

 

This, especially on a high ticket item.

 

3 kids? A wife yelling "Are you on those stoopid comic book forums again? We've got company coming over in less than 30 minutes and the place is still a mess! And you've somehow got time to sit and chat with your online friends?"

 

My wife says you all are "imaginary"…

[Jaydogrules]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

Your understanding of contract law is asininely wrong yet you spout off your knowledge as fact "I think that any tribunal..." So yes its upsetting to me (who spent years concentrating on studying contract/corporate/sales law) to listen to someone whose legal knowledge is based off watching some episodes of law and order (or maybe Perry Mason not sure how old you are) who thinks they know how the law works. Sadly for some reason everyone thinks they are a lawyer. Do me (and the other boardies who are attorneys) a favor and don't say things like "Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them" until you're actually admited to practice law in at least one state.

 

Jaybuck, I am not a contract lawyer myself, but I deal with contracts on a daily basis and do have an attorney to run any iffy circumstances by when needed.

 

It is my opinion that Dan's original public listing controls here, and that any back room dealings in a PM are just that...back room dealings.

 

If Dan's public listing specifically contains a proviso that first "i'll take it" in thread "trumps ANY and ALL PM's", would this not defeat any and all claims Trans had to the book in a "PM" if another buyer in fact posts the first "I'll take it" in the thread (per the specific instructions of the listing)?

 

What say you?

 

-J.

[seanfingh]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

I practice law in Ohio, and i don't have any problem with it.

[jaybuck43]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

[Jaydogrules]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

It would be Joey's under CA contract law as well, and I suspect under most or all states since (and correct me if I'm wrong), a lot of our country's fundamental contract laws go back to even before colonial times. Your resonse pretty much wraps up this thread for me.

 

Have fun guys.

 

-J.

[seanfingh]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

Wrong. Your premise is flawed. The rules did not say that an needed to be placed into a thread to complete a deal. It said that in the thread TRUMPS everything else. SD made a deal with Transplant. Offer, acceptance, consideration. He then used his TRUMP card to void out his deal with Transplant. So this is not an "additional or different terms" argument, it is "I have placed terms that allow me to void this type of agreement out anytime I want." If Joey never posted and Transplant paid, would the book have been his. Of course. It was only Joey's, because SD voided out his agreement with Transplant. I have a hard time believing a court would uphold this type of insane voidable agreement.

 

Maybe they would, but the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

[DrWatson]

Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them.

 

The real question becomes was the "I'll take it" rule abrogated, and effectively merged into the contract without effect, or was the contract voidable and subject to divestiture by subsequent "I'll take it" in the thread. Some are saying that the contract was voidable by its terms. They like black and white answers, because they can't see both sides if an issue. That generally fails no matter how many times one might repeat it.

 

I think that any tribunal would rule that Tranny was entitled to the book, and SD breached the contract. The reasoning would be that they wouldn't let a vendor profit from setting up a voidable contractual scheme. People would get screwed left and right if this were acceptable. This is a change that really needs to be set into place in the market place here.

I guess I get to ask the question again, what state (or states) do you practice law in?

 

Did I claim to practice law somewhere?

Your understanding of contract law is asininely wrong yet you spout off your knowledge as fact "I think that any tribunal..." So yes its upsetting to me (who spent years concentrating on studying contract/corporate/sales law) to listen to someone whose legal knowledge is based off watching some episodes of law and order (or maybe Perry Mason not sure how old you are) who thinks they know how the law works. Sadly for some reason everyone thinks they are a lawyer. Do me (and the other boardies who are attorneys) a favor and don't say things like "Basically Dan entered into two contracts and defaulted on one of them" until you're actually admited to practice law in at least one state.

 

Ok, IMO, Dan entered into two contracts. One with Tranny and one with Joey.

 

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ~ Mark Twain

[october]

the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

 

Yes.

 

I only inflicted about five minutes worth of this thread on myself, and law school was many years ago, but I think I can safely say that this could go either way. Hardly the open and shut people on both sides are trying to make it out to be.

 

It does prove that people love to argue over minutiae as much as ever though.

[Ogami]

Posting in a legendary thread!

[drbanner]

It does prove that people love to argue over minutiae as much as ever though.

And get all up in other people's business...

[Buzzetta]

Jaydogrules:

At least under New York law the deal would be Joey's. The seller (Spider-Dan) posted his conditions ("I wish to sell 1 widget for $X, in order to claim it the buyer must place a in this thread") Transplant wished to change one of the terms of the contract (the price) and contacted seller and said something along the lines of "Hey would you take $Y?" Seller responded with something like "No, but I would take $Z." Transplant said great in PM. All Transplant was doing was dickering over a single term, the price. Had he PM'd and said, "Hey I want to know, would you take $Y and can I claim it here in PM?" and Spider-Dan said, "You can claim it in PM but I can't sell for $Y, I can sell for $Z" then people would have a point that the contract was changed. The only term that was changed though was the price, Joey was still the first to claim it to the terms of the offer and thus he would be the only one with a valid contract. Now as to peoples opinions as to whether this is shady or not a good practice etc that's their call not the laws of course. However the general rule here is that Seller creates the terms of their offer so it should be respected.

 

Wrong. Your premise is flawed. The rules did not say that an needed to be placed into a thread to complete a deal. It said that in the thread TRUMPS everything else. SD made a deal with Transplant. Offer, acceptance, consideration. He then used his TRUMP card to void out his deal with Transplant. So this is not an "additional or different terms" argument, it is "I have placed terms that allow me to void this type of agreement out anytime I want." If Joey never posted and Transplant paid, would the book have been his. Of course. It was only Joey's, because SD voided out his agreement with Transplant. I have a hard time believing a court would uphold this type of insane voidable agreement.

 

Maybe they would, but the absolutes being thrown around in here are laughable.

 

 

I also think was Fingh is trying to say is that Dan's rules set it up so that while he negotiated a deal that was accepted by Mike, he is creating a loophole allowing himself to wait around until someone offers a better deal.

[ItsJustRyan]

Still?

[awakeintheashes]

Still?

Still!

[PIR8]

Still?

Still!

 

Forever