sidefx: ...but if I were the buyer I wouldn't view a deal as "done" based on a txt message.

sidefx: Maybe it's just me, but I think some of you are being a bit harsh on the OP. Yes, I agree they shouldn't have said they'd sell it if they weren't sure, but if I were the buyer I wouldn't view a deal as "done" based on a txt message. And then what kind of person starts threatening someone with lawyers over a text message, etc... It sounds a bit like the buyer realised the OP didn't know the value of the plate, pushed them into agreeing to a "sale" via text and has now got a bit nasty. Just IMO.

ubergeeknz: .  Anyway, this is pointless since we are not lawyers.

sidefx: It sounds a bit like the buyer realised the OP didn't know the value of the plate, pushed them into agreeing to a "sale" via text and has now got a bit nasty. Just IMO.

Bung: 

From info provided by the OP on the GP forum it seems that this started more than 2 years ago with an approach from the OP to the buyer. This isn't a case of somebody being ambushed.

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

mattwnz:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

I recall that if a shop makes an 'genuine error' with an advertised price, they don't have to sell it. You often hear of stories
where an online shop has made an error, someone takes advantage of it, and even pays, but he store then contacts them to tell them that there was an error and refunds it. Apparently that is all ok. Not sure if that applies for the OP. Perhaps they could ask their lawyer.

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

nathan:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

Never heard of this before, that a transaction can be over turned because price is not true value. Any reference to read more about this?

Caveat venditor?
Caveat emptor?

nathan:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

Never heard of this before, that a transaction can be over turned because price is not true value. Any reference to read more about this?

Caveat venditor?
Caveat emptor?

nathan:

mattwnz:

insane: I remember while studying com law at uni that if the price being offered by one party to the next is not a true reflection of the items value, then the contract can be voided. I'd like to say I can remember the parties involved in the case.

I don't see why the OP has to sell, clearly he's changed his mind now that he's realised the true value. Unfortunate that the buyer has had to liquidate some funds to afford it, but why do that before the deed which he requested was signed.

Would love to know the outcome of this, and whether the buyer has posted in this thread :-)

I recall that if a shop makes an 'genuine error' with an advertised price, they don't have to sell it. You often hear of stories
where an online shop has made an error, someone takes advantage of it, and even pays, but he store then contacts them to tell them that there was an error and refunds it. Apparently that is all ok. Not sure if that applies for the OP. Perhaps they could ask their lawyer.

This sounds a different situation. Other guy Suggested price, he agreed.

If this was in a shop with an item with price displayed incorrectly, shop doesn't have to sell it, but if they take the money at cash register, it's yours.