A question on morality

Started Jun 17, 2011 | Discussions thread
Barrie Davis
Forum ProPosts: 21,460
Like?
Re: sorry I disagree
In reply to theswede, Jun 21, 2011

theswede wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

In UK we do not have a contract until both parties have agreed to it.

Posting an item for sale on an auction site is signing on to a contract to sell if the terms are met. Bidding is signing on to a contract to buy if you're the winner. In this case, all terms are fulfilled, and both parties have agreed to a contact.

tl;dr: there is a contract.

And then the seller got cold feet. After the contract was already agreed upon by both parties.

As such, the advertised price of an item is nothing more than an "invitation to treat."

Completely different circumstances. This is not about an advertisement, but about an auction. The contract is in effect at the point the terms are fulfilled.

As stated before, I don't know the legal status of on-line auctions in Finland, where prior agreement to an UN-stated price may indeed be enforceable, but I suspect it would cost more to get the camera by legal proceedings than the camera is worth, even at the higher price.

It's a contract. Not a mere prior agreement, but a solid, mutually binding contract. If the price had been double what the seller expected you can rest assured he'd be on the case of the buyer trying everything to force him to agree to terms.

Exactly. And right now he's not in the position he was before the transaction was entered into; right now he's contractually the possessor of a camera and lense.

Maybe so, but he hasn't YET got the actual camera or lens, which I think is of more concern to him, neither has the money changed hands.

We're not talking about concern. It was stated as fact that the buyer will be "no worse off" if he backs off. This is in contradiction with facts at hand, and that was the basis for my comment. What does or does not concern the buyer is a different matter.

Moreover, if he ever does get the camera, he may find its condition reduced to reflect the price he paid, minus the costs incurred by the vendor... you know, just to keep things equable.

That would be breach of contract with malicious intent. If the seller does that it will be a matter for the police, and it will not be pretty.

What's he going to do then? Go to law, again?

I would certainly hope so!

I am reminded of the little epitaph...

This is the grave of Mike O'Day..
Who died maintaining his right of way.
His right was clear, his will was strong..
... but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

Fear is a potent weapon. You should exercise more care when attempting to wield it.

What do mean, "fear"? I'm not wielding fear. I'm just using the little poem to point up that being "right" isn't necessarily being a winner.

As it is, it is debatable who's right, and we have yet to see who wins... (if we ever do.)
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow