You did nothing wrong. You did not make a mistake. You can sell your car to whomever you want.
Was I in the wrong? Selling car on Craigslist...
- Thread starter Huie83
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: barkingspider
You did nothing wrong. You did not make a mistake. You can sell your car to whomever you want.
Sounds like a Robin Williams line from Good Will Hunting.
You did nothing wrong. You did not make a mistake. You can sell your car to whomever you want.
Sounds like a Robin Williams line from Good Will Hunting.
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Kira
You canceled an appointment. Nothing more.
The "nothing more" part is that the contract WAS the appointment....agreed upon by two individuals. In short, a right to have first refusal on the vehicle. And that's a right that is given a lot of weight in the business world from mergers, real estate, etc. The only way to remove that right was to have them back out, or actually see the car and waffle about it. They did neither. And if the buyer did back out, that would have been just as wrong as the seller backing out. And even "first $1200 takes it" doesn't negate this obligation.
"I emailed back and forth with a guy that seemed interested and he OFFERED me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out per my description."
He offered, you agreed. Contingencies and or time passing don't alter the original agreement. Case closed.
Can anyone direct me to the CFR "Craig's List" regulations? Or are they posted at the top of Craig's List pages stating that rules of US law are exempted by Craig's List cash and carry terms? Cash is the only "law."
In terms of both law and ethics in real estate, business, etc.; anything that isn't on paper never happened.
One could make the argument that the email is a binding contract of first refusal, except that the seller in this case never declared any exclusivity. Also, the buyer apparently never asked for exclusivity.
That is the clincher right there.
When a company or individual makes a claim of exclusivity on a transaction where there is question of such terms having been set, the first question that always comes up is how the transaction was secured.
This was a completely unsecured transaction, with no clear terms of exclusivity. The only way the buyer's claim could be weaker would be if he had never emailed at all.
There is not and probably never has been a property transaction in the business world where exclusivity was not established through some sort of financial guarantee; be it credit, cash, cashier's check, escrow, or otherwise.
There is zero obligation here. I and most professional people would define this as a casual negotiation, at best.
TO get to the heart of it, what's really being contracted here is an Option to buy the car in a week, not the agreement for the sale of the car.
The seller can't tell the buyer hey you agreed to buy the car at said price, so it's an option to see/buy the car.
Then the basic principle of contracts here really is about Consideration. I.e. there was no consideration (money/deposit) exchanged in payment for the Option to examine and perhaps buy the car in a week's time.
Even if you and the buyer went and got a notarized signed agreement where the Seller promises you hold the car for a week for a deal, without consideration, that piece of paper really is a unilateral contract or even a gift: The Seller offers to the Buyer for no price the option to see the car for 1 week.
In a unilateral contract, the offeror of the unilateral contract can rescind it at any time. Every judge/lawyer will agree with that basic principle.
(google contract law and consideration if you want more examples).
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Kira
You canceled an appointment. Nothing more.
The "nothing more" part is that the contract WAS the appointment....agreed upon by two individuals. In short, a right to have first refusal on the vehicle. And that's a right that is given a lot of weight in the business world from mergers, real estate, etc. The only way to remove that right was to have them back out, or actually see the car and waffle about it. They did neither. And if the buyer did back out, that would have been just as wrong as the seller backing out. And even "first $1200 takes it" doesn't negate this obligation.
"I emailed back and forth with a guy that seemed interested and he OFFERED me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out per my description."
He offered, you agreed. Contingencies and or time passing don't alter the original agreement. Case closed.
Can anyone direct me to the CFR "Craig's List" regulations? Or are they posted at the top of Craig's List pages stating that rules of US law are exempted by Craig's List cash and carry terms? Cash is the only "law."
In terms of both law and ethics in real estate, business, etc.; anything that isn't on paper never happened.
One could make the argument that the email is a binding contract of first refusal, except that the seller in this case never declared any exclusivity. Also, the buyer apparently never asked for exclusivity.
That is the clincher right there.
When a company or individual makes a claim of exclusivity on a transaction where there is question of such terms having been set, the first question that always comes up is how the transaction was secured.
This was a completely unsecured transaction, with no clear terms of exclusivity. The only way the buyer's claim could be weaker would be if he had never emailed at all.
There is not and probably never has been a property transaction in the business world where exclusivity was not established through some sort of financial guarantee; be it credit, cash, cashier's check, escrow, or otherwise.
There is zero obligation here. I and most professional people would define this as a casual negotiation, at best.
TO get to the heart of it, what's really being contracted here is an Option to buy the car in a week, not the agreement for the sale of the car.
The seller can't tell the buyer hey you agreed to buy the car at said price, so it's an option to see/buy the car.
Then the basic principle of contracts here really is about Consideration. I.e. there was no consideration (money/deposit) exchanged in payment for the Option to examine and perhaps buy the car in a week's time.
Even if you and the buyer went and got a notarized signed agreement where the Seller promises you hold the car for a week for a deal, without consideration, that piece of paper really is a unilateral contract or even a gift: The Seller offers to the Buyer for no price the option to see the car for 1 week.
In a unilateral contract, the offeror of the unilateral contract can rescind it at any time. Every judge/lawyer will agree with that basic principle.
(google contract law and consideration if you want more examples).
Last edited:
The real mistake was not telling the buyer that standard craigslist rules apply and it's first with the cash wins.
With that said, I did contact someone who listed their car that day on Sunday and I told them that I wouldn't be able to get there til later Monday evening after getting a bank check in the morning. When I showed up, he told me someone came by and offered him more in the morning but he held the car for me. I wouldn't have been mad at him for selling it from under me, but did appreciate that he held it for me.
With that said, I did contact someone who listed their car that day on Sunday and I told them that I wouldn't be able to get there til later Monday evening after getting a bank check in the morning. When I showed up, he told me someone came by and offered him more in the morning but he held the car for me. I wouldn't have been mad at him for selling it from under me, but did appreciate that he held it for me.
This sounds exactly like my couch giveaway. I put an old couch up for free on Craigslist about a year ago. Some guy said he was interested in it and would take it but said something like, "I'll need to borrow a truck from somebody first".
Well in the meantime someone else called and I said, if you want it come and get it so they showed up in about 30 minutes. I texted the other guy back and he was upset I had given away "his" couch.
I texted him back and said, "I've had so many people telling me they are interested in something only to either never show up or come out and look at it and say, I'll be back tomorrow and never show up. So from now on, it's first come get's it, not saying that you would do that, just saying."
One time I cut down this tree and cut it up in 2' sections and threw it into a pile and was going to light it up but thought someone might be interested in some free cut firewood. Since there are always people begging for free firewood on CL. Well I had a few people call and they all asked, "Is it oak?". I said, "I don't know what kind of tree it was, it's free!". Finally one guy called and said he didn't care what kind of wood it was that he was going to burn it in a coal furnace in his garage. He came out and I helped him load it up.
Well in the meantime someone else called and I said, if you want it come and get it so they showed up in about 30 minutes. I texted the other guy back and he was upset I had given away "his" couch.
I texted him back and said, "I've had so many people telling me they are interested in something only to either never show up or come out and look at it and say, I'll be back tomorrow and never show up. So from now on, it's first come get's it, not saying that you would do that, just saying."
One time I cut down this tree and cut it up in 2' sections and threw it into a pile and was going to light it up but thought someone might be interested in some free cut firewood. Since there are always people begging for free firewood on CL. Well I had a few people call and they all asked, "Is it oak?". I said, "I don't know what kind of tree it was, it's free!". Finally one guy called and said he didn't care what kind of wood it was that he was going to burn it in a coal furnace in his garage. He came out and I helped him load it up.
As was said, lots of flakes on CL. Another example....we were trying to get rid of our dining room set. No one was biting last year until Thanksgiving and Christmas, so we put it up again this year. The very day I'm leaving for a business trip I get an email.
Quote:
Very interested. I can come and pick up today but we would like to see the furniture. I live very close and need a new dining room set. Wife gave the OK
I responded back.
Quote:
Great! I'll be around to noon. Please have cash.
About 30 min later I hear back:
Quote:
I was overruled by the kids. Good luck with the sale.
Hmmm...I wonder if he thought he'd get it for free?
Quote:
Very interested. I can come and pick up today but we would like to see the furniture. I live very close and need a new dining room set. Wife gave the OK
I responded back.
Quote:
Great! I'll be around to noon. Please have cash.
About 30 min later I hear back:
Quote:
I was overruled by the kids. Good luck with the sale.
Hmmm...I wonder if he thought he'd get it for free?
Originally Posted By: 2002 Maxima SE
Hmmm...I wonder if he thought he'd get it for free?
In this case, he was probably working multiple options at the same time. Your set might have been his 2nd choice, but he contacted you anyway not hearing back from his 1st choice. After you and he exchanged an email or two, his 1st choice came through, so he had to let you down somehow. That happens all the time, and we all do it. We might have one salesman on the line at Store A and one at Store B for competing products (whatever it is, cars, mattresses, etc). Both look forward to a sale, but only one of them will get it (and the other one is probably calling us a flake to his coworkers).
Hmmm...I wonder if he thought he'd get it for free?
In this case, he was probably working multiple options at the same time. Your set might have been his 2nd choice, but he contacted you anyway not hearing back from his 1st choice. After you and he exchanged an email or two, his 1st choice came through, so he had to let you down somehow. That happens all the time, and we all do it. We might have one salesman on the line at Store A and one at Store B for competing products (whatever it is, cars, mattresses, etc). Both look forward to a sale, but only one of them will get it (and the other one is probably calling us a flake to his coworkers).
I'd just send him an e-mail with this:
Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
Never tell them you will be only home till noon. He could have been casing your place, while you were away and/or right after you left.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
Originally Posted By: supton
How would a big-time dealership handle this? I'm pretty sure that, unless if a deposit is made, they are going to sell to the first person with cash.
This is absolutely how dealerships operate. I just heard a story about a Wrangler that got sold over the phone while it was out for a test drive. (Wranglers are hot hot hot, new or used.)
On CL, I don't bother with anyone who thinks they can value a car without even seeing it. That practice betrays an extreme deficiency in common sense which would prohibit good business dealings.
I don't consider most big time dealers ethical. For every 5 times I've gone to see one of them and make a deal, 4X they will jerk you around and change the terms right under your nose...or flat out lie to you. Tired of that [censored]. The last time at a big dealer (2011) they kept my $500 deposit for 6 months before I got it back by filing a complaint with BBB. When I did a GM service history on their car the Monday after I visited them, I found out the car had numerous warranty issues....to the point where the GM service mgr I talked to said to "run as fast as you can" away from that car. I did get my deposit back but lost any remaining faith I ever had in dealerships. I consider most of them crooks, though meeting technical business requirements. Being ethical and moral are quite different than being legal.
No cash deposits on used cars? Tell it to the above dealer. The car was a 10 year old, 1 owner, 2001 Pontiac Trans Am WS6...asking price was $10,500. I guess some dealers do things differently than others. I also bought a used 1998 Z28 in 2002 as well as a used 1993 Trans Am in 1994....both required deposits if I didn't want to risk losing them. Both were good cars so left a deposit. Both were large new car dealerships.
Most of the comments here are in reply to what the OP should have done with their ad. Thing is, they didn't do that, leaving a loose end with that first potential buyer. No doubt, such loose ends will be corrected in their next ad.
Forget all the "WHAT IFs." The bottom line is that a deal was struck, and the OP reneged on it. That's cut and dry. If this went to small claims court the judge would find for potential buyer #1. The "rules" of Craig's List Evidence don't apply in a court of law. This has nothing to do with "feelings," only contract law....and in this case a contract via verbal agreements.
The "rules of Craigslist" is actually based on common law. Verbal agreements are only binding up to a certain amount, typically $500-$1000 depending on state law. It's not clear that the buyer was actually going to buy it, he was just going to take a look at it. There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Oh and it's just a good practice not to take a deposit, what do you do if the guy never shows up with the rest of the money? Most people forget to spell out the terms of the deposit. It should say something like balance due in 7 days otherwise deposit is forfeit or something to that effect. Otherwise people are holding deposits forever.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The very first house (sale by owner) I put a deposit on to buy back in 1992 ($1,000 check handed to the seller - and a contract signed by both of us with no contingencies or additional inspections) was later reneged on by his girlfriend (ie his realtor...lol). They returned my check and told me they had higher offers. Actually, the girlfriend was furious that he tried to sell the house without her...lol. I told them to shove it where the sun don't shine. So much for deposits and contracts. You can be first....and still lose to the crooks. If that guy married that woman....I hope he got what he deserved.
You had a signed contract from the seller? If the seller didn't sign it, you've got nothing. If they didn't deposit the check, then there was no consideration. I've done offers where an agreement was reached on the phone, but then another offer comes in and it's dead. Nobody gets mad though because everyone knows that's how the system works, at least all the brokers do.
Originally Posted By: Ethan1
Originally Posted By: supton
How would a big-time dealership handle this? I'm pretty sure that, unless if a deposit is made, they are going to sell to the first person with cash.
This is absolutely how dealerships operate. I just heard a story about a Wrangler that got sold over the phone while it was out for a test drive. (Wranglers are hot hot hot, new or used.)
On CL, I don't bother with anyone who thinks they can value a car without even seeing it. That practice betrays an extreme deficiency in common sense which would prohibit good business dealings.
I don't consider most big time dealers ethical. For every 5 times I've gone to see one of them and make a deal, 4X they will jerk you around and change the terms right under your nose...or flat out lie to you. Tired of that [censored]. The last time at a big dealer (2011) they kept my $500 deposit for 6 months before I got it back by filing a complaint with BBB. When I did a GM service history on their car the Monday after I visited them, I found out the car had numerous warranty issues....to the point where the GM service mgr I talked to said to "run as fast as you can" away from that car. I did get my deposit back but lost any remaining faith I ever had in dealerships. I consider most of them crooks, though meeting technical business requirements. Being ethical and moral are quite different than being legal.
No cash deposits on used cars? Tell it to the above dealer. The car was a 10 year old, 1 owner, 2001 Pontiac Trans Am WS6...asking price was $10,500. I guess some dealers do things differently than others. I also bought a used 1998 Z28 in 2002 as well as a used 1993 Trans Am in 1994....both required deposits if I didn't want to risk losing them. Both were good cars so left a deposit. Both were large new car dealerships.
Most of the comments here are in reply to what the OP should have done with their ad. Thing is, they didn't do that, leaving a loose end with that first potential buyer. No doubt, such loose ends will be corrected in their next ad.
Forget all the "WHAT IFs." The bottom line is that a deal was struck, and the OP reneged on it. That's cut and dry. If this went to small claims court the judge would find for potential buyer #1. The "rules" of Craig's List Evidence don't apply in a court of law. This has nothing to do with "feelings," only contract law....and in this case a contract via verbal agreements.
The "rules of Craigslist" is actually based on common law. Verbal agreements are only binding up to a certain amount, typically $500-$1000 depending on state law. It's not clear that the buyer was actually going to buy it, he was just going to take a look at it. There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Oh and it's just a good practice not to take a deposit, what do you do if the guy never shows up with the rest of the money? Most people forget to spell out the terms of the deposit. It should say something like balance due in 7 days otherwise deposit is forfeit or something to that effect. Otherwise people are holding deposits forever.
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
The very first house (sale by owner) I put a deposit on to buy back in 1992 ($1,000 check handed to the seller - and a contract signed by both of us with no contingencies or additional inspections) was later reneged on by his girlfriend (ie his realtor...lol). They returned my check and told me they had higher offers. Actually, the girlfriend was furious that he tried to sell the house without her...lol. I told them to shove it where the sun don't shine. So much for deposits and contracts. You can be first....and still lose to the crooks. If that guy married that woman....I hope he got what he deserved.
You had a signed contract from the seller? If the seller didn't sign it, you've got nothing. If they didn't deposit the check, then there was no consideration. I've done offers where an agreement was reached on the phone, but then another offer comes in and it's dead. Nobody gets mad though because everyone knows that's how the system works, at least all the brokers do.
You did nothing wrong.
He had every opportunity to come sooner.
The key factor here is:
he offered me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out
You told him you were amenable to his offer, but then he turned around and said he wanted to come by and see it to make sure he REALLY wanted it. This is effectively him saying he's not committed. No verbal contract has been reached.
...Now, if he had already been en-route to driving to you, and you sold it while he was in transit, THEN I'd say he would have had a right to be mad, but that's not what happened.
Ultimately, he's mad at HIMSELF and directing the anger at you. I'd say it's 100% his problem and you can move on.
He had every opportunity to come sooner.
The key factor here is:
he offered me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out
You told him you were amenable to his offer, but then he turned around and said he wanted to come by and see it to make sure he REALLY wanted it. This is effectively him saying he's not committed. No verbal contract has been reached.
...Now, if he had already been en-route to driving to you, and you sold it while he was in transit, THEN I'd say he would have had a right to be mad, but that's not what happened.
Ultimately, he's mad at HIMSELF and directing the anger at you. I'd say it's 100% his problem and you can move on.
Originally Posted By: SirTanon
You did nothing wrong.
He had every opportunity to come sooner.
The key factor here is:
he offered me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out
You told him you were amenable to his offer, but then he turned around and said he wanted to come by and see it to make sure he REALLY wanted it. This is effectively him saying he's not committed. No verbal contract has been reached.
...Now, if he had already been en-route to driving to you, and you sold it while he was in transit, THEN I'd say he would have had a right to be mad, but that's not what happened.
Ultimately, he's mad at HIMSELF and directing the anger at you. I'd say it's 100% his problem and you can move on.
Exactly. This is what he said means to me: If I come by and look at it, and like it, I might buy it, then again I might not buy it, and I might not even show. Don't hold your breath waiting for me.
I would have asked for a deposit, which he probably would have refused. Bottom line, if I think something is a good deal I act fast, for the exact same reason of what happened here. If someone gets there before me with cash in hand, I might lose out.
You did nothing wrong.
He had every opportunity to come sooner.
The key factor here is:
he offered me a price contingent on him coming to take a look at the vehicle and it checking out
You told him you were amenable to his offer, but then he turned around and said he wanted to come by and see it to make sure he REALLY wanted it. This is effectively him saying he's not committed. No verbal contract has been reached.
...Now, if he had already been en-route to driving to you, and you sold it while he was in transit, THEN I'd say he would have had a right to be mad, but that's not what happened.
Ultimately, he's mad at HIMSELF and directing the anger at you. I'd say it's 100% his problem and you can move on.
Exactly. This is what he said means to me: If I come by and look at it, and like it, I might buy it, then again I might not buy it, and I might not even show. Don't hold your breath waiting for me.
I would have asked for a deposit, which he probably would have refused. Bottom line, if I think something is a good deal I act fast, for the exact same reason of what happened here. If someone gets there before me with cash in hand, I might lose out.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Buyer #1 would certainly disagree. He worked with the seller to arrange a time that is workable to both parties. According to the original post, they did agree on an appointment time, place, and price, with the buyer disclaiming that his price is valid only if the car is as presented in the ad when he shows up. We all do this to protect ourselves: if you have an agreement to buy a mint condition set of golf clubs for $200, and you show up and they're covered in rust, you're not obligated to pay $200 -- you're going to reserve the option to not purchase the product if the condition is not as presented, or to offer a lower price.
I don't see any action in Buyer #1 that indicates that he's a flake or that his interest is only casual. We don't know why he couldn't make it before Tuesday. Maybe his wife is laid up in the hospital. Maybe he's a firefighter and works shifts or nights and Tuesday was the first opportunity he'd have had to make the trip. We know nothing about Buyer #1 other than what is presented in the original post. I think the posts that frame him as a flake are a little presumptuous.
From the original post, I believe Buyer #1 felt that he had a handshake agreement with the seller at the terms discussed. The seller said that he did not tell the buyer that he would take the first cash offer, and I think this is obviously the moral of this story. It's never enough to rely on any "unwritten rule" when conducting business ethically and transparently. If all terms were clearly disclosed up front, including the option for seller to take the first cash offer in-hand, Buyer #1 wouldn't have had the misunderstanding that he did.
Neither party was disingenuous or acted with bad intent. It was simply a misunderstanding due to a lack of communication. Seller was right to do this after-action review, and I think a lesson can be taken away by everyone because of it.
There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Buyer #1 would certainly disagree. He worked with the seller to arrange a time that is workable to both parties. According to the original post, they did agree on an appointment time, place, and price, with the buyer disclaiming that his price is valid only if the car is as presented in the ad when he shows up. We all do this to protect ourselves: if you have an agreement to buy a mint condition set of golf clubs for $200, and you show up and they're covered in rust, you're not obligated to pay $200 -- you're going to reserve the option to not purchase the product if the condition is not as presented, or to offer a lower price.
I don't see any action in Buyer #1 that indicates that he's a flake or that his interest is only casual. We don't know why he couldn't make it before Tuesday. Maybe his wife is laid up in the hospital. Maybe he's a firefighter and works shifts or nights and Tuesday was the first opportunity he'd have had to make the trip. We know nothing about Buyer #1 other than what is presented in the original post. I think the posts that frame him as a flake are a little presumptuous.
From the original post, I believe Buyer #1 felt that he had a handshake agreement with the seller at the terms discussed. The seller said that he did not tell the buyer that he would take the first cash offer, and I think this is obviously the moral of this story. It's never enough to rely on any "unwritten rule" when conducting business ethically and transparently. If all terms were clearly disclosed up front, including the option for seller to take the first cash offer in-hand, Buyer #1 wouldn't have had the misunderstanding that he did.
Neither party was disingenuous or acted with bad intent. It was simply a misunderstanding due to a lack of communication. Seller was right to do this after-action review, and I think a lesson can be taken away by everyone because of it.
see my post. there was no Consideration given for the Option to buy in a week's time. therefore no contract.
If even $5 was given, from a legal perspective that changes everything to enforce that option.
if I made you a promise but you give me nothing for that promise , I can change my mind and rescind on that promise anytime I want.
but overall i will agree even if you are in theright, it's an easier life if you better inform people of what you plan to do so you do not have to deal with an angry call later.
If even $5 was given, from a legal perspective that changes everything to enforce that option.
if I made you a promise but you give me nothing for that promise , I can change my mind and rescind on that promise anytime I want.
but overall i will agree even if you are in theright, it's an easier life if you better inform people of what you plan to do so you do not have to deal with an angry call later.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: raytseng
but overall i will agree even if you are in theright, it's an easier life if you better inform people of what you plan to do so you do not have to deal with an angry call later.
That's right. I'm not sure that ANY of us thinks seller was not entitled to take the first cash offer -- he, of course, does have that right. In terms of what would have been the best way to handle the process, though...that's where clear and open communication comes in.
but overall i will agree even if you are in theright, it's an easier life if you better inform people of what you plan to do so you do not have to deal with an angry call later.
That's right. I'm not sure that ANY of us thinks seller was not entitled to take the first cash offer -- he, of course, does have that right. In terms of what would have been the best way to handle the process, though...that's where clear and open communication comes in.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Buyer #1 would certainly disagree. He worked with the seller to arrange a time that is workable to both parties. According to the original post, they did agree on an appointment time, place, and price, with the buyer disclaiming that his price is valid only if the car is as presented in the ad when he shows up. We all do this to protect ourselves: if you have an agreement to buy a mint condition set of golf clubs for $200, and you show up and they're covered in rust, you're not obligated to pay $200 -- you're going to reserve the option to not purchase the product if the condition is not as presented, or to offer a lower price.
I don't see any action in Buyer #1 that indicates that he's a flake or that his interest is only casual. We don't know why he couldn't make it before Tuesday. Maybe his wife is laid up in the hospital. Maybe he's a firefighter and works shifts or nights and Tuesday was the first opportunity he'd have had to make the trip. We know nothing about Buyer #1 other than what is presented in the original post. I think the posts that frame him as a flake are a little presumptuous.
From the original post, I believe Buyer #1 felt that he had a handshake agreement with the seller at the terms discussed. The seller said that he did not tell the buyer that he would take the first cash offer, and I think this is obviously the moral of this story. It's never enough to rely on any "unwritten rule" when conducting business ethically and transparently. If all terms were clearly disclosed up front, including the option for seller to take the first cash offer in-hand, Buyer #1 wouldn't have had the misunderstanding that he did.
Neither party was disingenuous or acted with bad intent. It was simply a misunderstanding due to a lack of communication. Seller was right to do this after-action review, and I think a lesson can be taken away by everyone because of it.
The phrase meeting of the minds is a legal term. There was no meeting of the minds as it refers to both parties. Neither party was fully familiar with contracts and terms. I negotiate them all the time. To be legally binding, you need a written contract and consideration, even verbal agreements are only valid up to a certain amount so that you can be sued if you order at a restaurant or get a haircut and don't pay up. If there had been, it would have been buyer #1 saying I'll take it and here's the money and the seller saying ok. That didn't happen.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
There was no meeting of the minds and no actual agreement on the price.
Buyer #1 would certainly disagree. He worked with the seller to arrange a time that is workable to both parties. According to the original post, they did agree on an appointment time, place, and price, with the buyer disclaiming that his price is valid only if the car is as presented in the ad when he shows up. We all do this to protect ourselves: if you have an agreement to buy a mint condition set of golf clubs for $200, and you show up and they're covered in rust, you're not obligated to pay $200 -- you're going to reserve the option to not purchase the product if the condition is not as presented, or to offer a lower price.
I don't see any action in Buyer #1 that indicates that he's a flake or that his interest is only casual. We don't know why he couldn't make it before Tuesday. Maybe his wife is laid up in the hospital. Maybe he's a firefighter and works shifts or nights and Tuesday was the first opportunity he'd have had to make the trip. We know nothing about Buyer #1 other than what is presented in the original post. I think the posts that frame him as a flake are a little presumptuous.
From the original post, I believe Buyer #1 felt that he had a handshake agreement with the seller at the terms discussed. The seller said that he did not tell the buyer that he would take the first cash offer, and I think this is obviously the moral of this story. It's never enough to rely on any "unwritten rule" when conducting business ethically and transparently. If all terms were clearly disclosed up front, including the option for seller to take the first cash offer in-hand, Buyer #1 wouldn't have had the misunderstanding that he did.
Neither party was disingenuous or acted with bad intent. It was simply a misunderstanding due to a lack of communication. Seller was right to do this after-action review, and I think a lesson can be taken away by everyone because of it.
The phrase meeting of the minds is a legal term. There was no meeting of the minds as it refers to both parties. Neither party was fully familiar with contracts and terms. I negotiate them all the time. To be legally binding, you need a written contract and consideration, even verbal agreements are only valid up to a certain amount so that you can be sued if you order at a restaurant or get a haircut and don't pay up. If there had been, it would have been buyer #1 saying I'll take it and here's the money and the seller saying ok. That didn't happen.
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
There was no meeting of the minds as it refers to both parties.
I'm in 100% agreement. We know that as third party observers, but I'm confident that Buyer thought he understood the arrangement. I don't think he hung up the phone thinking, "that jerk's gonna sell this car right out from under me!" His apparent dumbfounded reaction to the car being sold to someone else is evidence of that. People buy and sell vehicles all the time without involving contract attorneys. As long as there is mutual understanding of the terms of the sale, the transaction is completed successfully.
Buyer thought he had more commitment from Seller than he really had. Had there been more mutual communication between the two, the unpleasant situation would have been avoided.
Buyer could have asked, "so, you're going to hold the car until Tuesday, right?" To which Seller would have said, "no", and laid out the terms.
Seller could have said, "even though we have an appointment on Tuesday, I still will entertain cash offers prior to that," and laid out the terms.
Neither party established the terms of understanding with the other party, even though Buyer probably thought he had. I think we all agree on this. I bet Seller always puts the "cash is king" disclaimer on his ads from now on. And I bet Buyer will clarify in the future whether the car is being held for him or not, or if Seller wants a deposit. I'm sure both parties went away wiser from this.
There was no meeting of the minds as it refers to both parties.
I'm in 100% agreement. We know that as third party observers, but I'm confident that Buyer thought he understood the arrangement. I don't think he hung up the phone thinking, "that jerk's gonna sell this car right out from under me!" His apparent dumbfounded reaction to the car being sold to someone else is evidence of that. People buy and sell vehicles all the time without involving contract attorneys. As long as there is mutual understanding of the terms of the sale, the transaction is completed successfully.
Buyer thought he had more commitment from Seller than he really had. Had there been more mutual communication between the two, the unpleasant situation would have been avoided.
Buyer could have asked, "so, you're going to hold the car until Tuesday, right?" To which Seller would have said, "no", and laid out the terms.
Seller could have said, "even though we have an appointment on Tuesday, I still will entertain cash offers prior to that," and laid out the terms.
Neither party established the terms of understanding with the other party, even though Buyer probably thought he had. I think we all agree on this. I bet Seller always puts the "cash is king" disclaimer on his ads from now on. And I bet Buyer will clarify in the future whether the car is being held for him or not, or if Seller wants a deposit. I'm sure both parties went away wiser from this.
Ca$h talks... bull [censored] walks.
Very simple, first person with the $$$ buys the car.
Very simple, first person with the $$$ buys the car.
- Status
