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.
sidefx: ...but if I were the buyer I wouldn't view a deal as "done" based on a txt message.
I think this is a very key point specifically because of the fact that both parties were under the understanding that a formal agreement was to be completed prior to the exchange. This suggests to me (IANAL) that there would be a very good case to say the contact was not finalised and was still in negotiation.
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.
I thought that initially , very quick to go legal, but a simple phone call could solve a hell of a lot
I take it you have he has not been granted that right to sue you, so you aren't being sued.
But I would consider seeking legal advise as a lot of things these days are binding. I guess you need to be sure you want to sell something before you let others make an offer and you accept.
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.
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.
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.
Ah OK, I haven't seen that and I guess if the OP has deleted it all from GP I won't be able. Hmm, if I were the buyer I would have walked away a long time ago... but yeah I have a lot less sympathy for the OP in that case.
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 :-)
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 :-)
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.
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?
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?
It's not true. Nt at all.
There only needs to be some consideration from both sides. Consideration means some value, but there is no requirement for it to be fair value
You could sell a house for 1 dollar if you wanted to.
The only potential exception would be where a price is not agreed beforehand. For example, if you don't ask a plumber how much he charges for a call out, and then he invoices you after he does some work for $100,000 for a simple call out this would not be allowed.
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?
I'll try dig it out, think I still have my uni lecture slides somewhere. It involved someone offering to buy something off an elderly person for X when it was worth XXXX. Obviously not the same as in this case here as the OP knows the plate had real good value.
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.
Yes, that is correct, because a price tag is "merely inviting an offer"..
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
Microsoft
