I have been THINKING..............

[DAVIDSW]

Hi TRF Members,
Within the past week we have had some posts about the "Buyer" backing out of a deal .

I have been thinking about how we as TRF members would feel if the shoe was on the other foot and the "Seller" backed out of the deal....

Here is a situation:

5PM: Buyer contact seller about a watch he has for sale.... After minor negotiations the "Selller" agrees on a price and the deal is agreed on.

9AM NEXT DAY: Buyer contacts seller to inform him of payment being arranged and the seller informs the buyer that he has changed his mind on the price and has increased it to the actual original asking price.

The reason that the buyer gives is irrelevant.. maybe he thinks he can sell for more... maybe somebody offered him more after the buyer spoke to him....

How do we feel about a situation like this.

If the buyer has a right to back out of a deal does the seller also have that right???


Best
DavidSW

Please note: This is a simple discussion and we don't want to see anyone being banned from this

[d-cannon]

As annoying and disappointing as it is whenever any party does it... either party has the right to change their mind. However, a seller has a lot more at stake if they conduct business that way.
In everyday business, sellers meet "tire kickers" and window shoppers, but most buyers do not find sellers who do the same, so it would be a stark contrast to the norm.

[TimeToGo]

It would be VERY unfortunate if it came down to everyone waiting for that last opportunity to make and/or save the extra $.

This forum is not like that, though. I know we can weed through the few.

Excellent point!

[jdc]

depends what happened on the verbal deal and if payment options were discussed. Was the seller convinced it was a solid deal? Or was he waiting for confirmation the next day via buyers wish to get details of payment which buyer could have got earlier.
If the seller had a more solid offer and another prospective buyer had asked for details for payment between the two events I can understand why seller would take up the a later offer.
If seller had a change of mind regarding price and no third party was involved that is not great business practice as a person should honour their word

[bodybump]

IMO i think if the buyer both agreed on something "word against their word" i think we are commited on a verbal contract...as a seller if i agreed on something and close the deal with somebody...im obliged to give what ever we agreed upon...it makes you more trustworthy and honest...Since we dont have any written contract or stuff like that verbal agreement is a contract too between two parties...As a seller if im not sure about the price im selling or im not comfortable about the deal...i wont commit to it...same also as a buyer....but if both parties had a verbal agreement and have talk to the phone and closed the deal i think the buyer has to commit to what was agreed upon..or they will loose their reputation and trust from forum members...It might not be mentioned in the forum but people also talk outside this forum...I say thats just very unprofessional of the seller...

[idk01]

Honestly, I would be a little put out, but at the end of the day its up to me to either put up more cash, negotiate a middle ground, or walk away, and the seller has the right to change his mind, like mentioned above, he could have a better offer, thats life :-)

Theres no use name calling and getting in a fuss as the seller might have the catch of the century in the future for you, we're all friends here and I would respect the sellers decision.

[diablojota]

Originally Posted by bodybump

IMO i think if the buyer both agreed on something "word against their word" i think we are commited on a verbal contract...as a seller if i agreed on something and close the deal with somebody...im obliged to give what ever we agreed upon...it makes you more trustworthy and honest...Since we dont have any written contract or stuff like that verbal agreement is a contract too between two parties...As a seller if im not sure about the price im selling or im not comfortable about the deal...i wont commit to it...same also as a buyer....but if both parties had a verbal agreement and have talk to the phone and closed the deal i think the buyer has to commit to what was agreed upon..or they will loose their reputation and trust from forum members...It might not be mentioned in the forum but people also talk outside this forum...I say thats just very unprofessional of the seller...

x2. I have to agree with this reasoning. I think if you have made verbal confirmation of the deal being okay, and all is in order (both parties have said yes), then you have a contract. If it's via email, then in all technicality you have a written contract. While I am not a lawyer, last time I checked, that's still good enough for a lawsuit if you wanted to really pursue it. The deal is done, don't back out, it's unprofessional on both sides. If there was an agreed to amount and both parties accept, then that's it.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by bodybump

IMO i think if the buyer both agreed on something "word against their word" i think we are commited on a verbal contract...as a seller if i agreed on something and close the deal with somebody...im obliged to give what ever we agreed upon...it makes you more trustworthy and honest...Since we dont have any written contract or stuff like that verbal agreement is a contract too between two parties...As a seller if im not sure about the price im selling or im not comfortable about the deal...i wont commit to it...same also as a buyer....but if both parties had a verbal agreement and have talk to the phone and closed the deal i think the buyer has to commit to what was agreed upon..or they will loose their reputation and trust from forum members...It might not be mentioned in the forum but people also talk outside this forum...I say thats just very unprofessional of the seller...

Agree with Oscar. Last year I helped locate a GMT Pepsi for a family member. As soon as I agreed on a price with the seller, and BEFORE the family member initiated transferring funds, I heard back another seller offering the same condition piece for $200 less! Nevertheless, I declined the offer as I didn't want to back out of the first deal. Just not the right thing to do IMO.

[Bebot]

Originally Posted by DAVIDSW

If the buyer has a right to back out of a deal does the seller also have that right???


Best
DavidSW

Please note: This is a simple discussion and we don't want to see anyone being banned from this

Yes of course the seller have the right to back out of the deal. After all I take this are private sellers. There isn't really any law about verbal agreement on private sales. Happened to me more than once. Like I always say, nothing personal, just business.

[bodybump]

Originally Posted by Bebot

Yes of course the seller have the right to back out of the deal. After all I take this are private sellers. There isn't really any law about verbal agreement on private sales. Happened to me more than once. Like I always say, nothing personal, just business.

I say dont commit if you cant do the deal...Its business ethics...yes you can back out but try think of it loosing a very good customer...You think you loose one customer but for me you already lost more than one...If you say its business then i guess its very unprofessional business....

[Bebot]

Originally Posted by bodybump

I say dont commit if you cant do the deal...Its business ethics...yes you can back out but try think of it loosing a very good customer...You think you loose one customer but for me you already lost more than one...If you say its business then i guess its very unprofessional business....

It is unfortunate but it is a human nature and sometimes nothing you can do. I guess you have the right to call the buyer or seller a flake.

As a seller or buyer you should always expect that it is not a done deal until it's closed and anything could happen.

I remember putting a down payment on a nice vehicle from a private seller. Went back the next day with the rest of the money and to pick the vehicle and learned that vehicle is no longer for sale. The private seller did not know what he was selling and his son adviced him to back out. There was nothing I could do at that time but to get my money back and walked away. The old offered to compensate my time and I simply no and said thank you.

[the KING]

Don't commit if you are not sure.

[Mosco]

Touchy subject, I take the 5th...

David, all I can say is - I feel ya.

[DAVIDSW]

Originally Posted by Mosco

Touchy subject, I take the 5th...

David, all I can say is - I feel ya.

Remember TRF Members... This is just a spirited discussion ....... We don't want anyone banned ....

IMO.... I have been in a situation where I closed a deal verbally to a Buyer and I was offered more 2 hours later from another buyer.

I did not take the higher offer as I try to be a man of my word.

I did in turn offer to find him another one and he agreed so it worked out well but had I taken the higher offer I would have lost a buyer and maybe a friend for life.....

Comrades are hard to come by.... That is why I love TRF.... Best group around

[diablojota]

Here are the basic laws regarding breach of contract (which this is a case of):
The basic rule is that parties to contracts must perform as specified
in the contract unless (1) the parties agree to the change in the
contract's terms, or (2) the actions of the party who deviates from
the terms of the contract are implicitly accepted ("ratified") by the
action or non-action of the other party.

If there is no acceptance of deviation from the terms of the
contract, and the deviation is serious enough to make any real
difference in the intended result of the contract, then the deviating
party is said to have breached the contract. His justified
prevention or interference with the performance of the other party is
also a breach.

Of course if one party fails more or less entirely to perform the
contract, or totally prevents the performance of the contract by the
other party, the situation is straightforward. The situation becomes
more complex where the argument is over the quality of materials, the
timing of work, or something of that sort.

Breach of contract leaves the nonperforming or improperly performing
party open to a claim for damages by the other party. The non-
breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by
the other party's breach.

The aggrieved party, to help support his claim for breach, should
have done all the things required of him under the contract up until
the time of breach, and must have done nothing to make it impossible
or unreasonably difficult for the other party to perform his share.
The nonperforming party can be expected to make excuses for his
conduct, and he will try to find ways to blame the other party--an
excellent argument for performing one's own side of a contract
punctiliously and in a manner that leaves a record which others can
see.

There are so many possible ways for performance of a contract to give
rise to dissatisfaction that the courts have been forced to analyze
the matter in much more subtle terms than "breached" or "not
breached."

The doctrine of "substantial performance" saves a party who has
largely fulfilled his obligations under a contract from suffering
major loss merely because he has unintentionally fallen short in some
particular which does not affect the essence of the contract.

There has to be a limit to the quibbles of the dissatisfied customer,
for example, or the courts would be swamped with trials over precise
shades of paint and tiny imperfections in services. A party can
unintentionally fall short of perfection, but if he has substantially
performed his duties under the contract, he can still sue the other
party for payment.

The dissatisfied party, on the other hand, can usually win some
adjustment in the amount of payment as compensation for the minor
defects in the performance.

Where a party's unintentional failure to perform fully does affect
the essence of the contract, he cannot sue the other party "on the
contract" in order to be paid. To the extent that his work has
benefited the other party, he may recover on the theory of a contract
implied by law (quasi-contract), as explained above.

REMEDIES

The ordinary remedy for breach of contract is money damages.

As we said earlier, a contract should always foresee the possibility
of nonperformance, intentional or unintentional, and should spell out
what is to be done.

Some contracts go so far as to include an agreement on a set amount
of "liquidated damages" which are to be paid in case something goes
wrong. These are acceptable to the courts as long as the amount of
liquidated damages is a reasonable estimation of the harm that would
be done by the breach. If the amount is so excessive as to amount to
a penalty or fine rather than compensation for harm the courts will
ignore the liquidated damages clause and assess damages by actually
measuring at trial the financial harm done by the breach.

You should, unless the provision may pose a worse threat to you than
to the other party, specify in your contracts that if legal action
for breach is necessary, the losing party will pay attorney's fees.

If you and the other party live in different geographical
jurisdictions, you should try to include a provision which says that
the contract is to be enforced under the laws of your jurisdiction.
This makes it possible for any litigation concerning the contract to
take place in a court near your home.

The purpose of damages in suits on contracts is at best to place the
injured party in as nearly as possible the same position he would
have been in had the contract been properly performed, and at least
to restore him as nearly as possible to the position he would have
been in had he made no contract at all. In other words, no one
should suffer loss because another has failed to perform a contract
properly.

Where nonperformance is total, for example, the damaged party should
get back any money he has paid, along with additional money to
compensate him for any actual financial loss which resulted from the
nonperformance. The loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable
result of the nonperformance.

Do not expect, however, to receive money damages designed merely to
punish the breaching party for dishonesty or bad behavior. Such
"punitive damages", which are possibilities in suits for personal
injury and other wrongs, are not available in suits on contracts.
Of course if you can allege that you were defrauded, for example,
then you are suing for wrongdoing beyond the breach of contract,
and you may receive punitive damages.

The principals of damages in contract suits are as numerous as the
problems that can arise from contracts. All we have been able to do
here is to give some idea of the ramifications.

Source: Lectric Law Library.

[Mosco]

Originally Posted by diablojota

Here are the basic laws regarding breach of contract (which this is a case of):
The basic rule is that parties to contracts must perform as specified
in the contract unless (1) the parties agree to the change in the
contract's terms, or (2) the actions of the party who deviates from
the terms of the contract are implicitly accepted ("ratified") by the
action or non-action of the other party.

If there is no acceptance of deviation from the terms of the
contract, and the deviation is serious enough to make any real
difference in the intended result of the contract, then the deviating
party is said to have breached the contract. His justified
prevention or interference with the performance of the other party is
also a breach.

Of course if one party fails more or less entirely to perform the
contract, or totally prevents the performance of the contract by the
other party, the situation is straightforward. The situation becomes
more complex where the argument is over the quality of materials, the
timing of work, or something of that sort.

Breach of contract leaves the nonperforming or improperly performing
party open to a claim for damages by the other party. The non-
breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by
the other party's breach.

The aggrieved party, to help support his claim for breach, should
have done all the things required of him under the contract up until
the time of breach, and must have done nothing to make it impossible
or unreasonably difficult for the other party to perform his share.
The nonperforming party can be expected to make excuses for his
conduct, and he will try to find ways to blame the other party--an
excellent argument for performing one's own side of a contract
punctiliously and in a manner that leaves a record which others can
see.

There are so many possible ways for performance of a contract to give
rise to dissatisfaction that the courts have been forced to analyze
the matter in much more subtle terms than "breached" or "not
breached."

The doctrine of "substantial performance" saves a party who has
largely fulfilled his obligations under a contract from suffering
major loss merely because he has unintentionally fallen short in some
particular which does not affect the essence of the contract.

There has to be a limit to the quibbles of the dissatisfied customer,
for example, or the courts would be swamped with trials over precise
shades of paint and tiny imperfections in services. A party can
unintentionally fall short of perfection, but if he has substantially
performed his duties under the contract, he can still sue the other
party for payment.

The dissatisfied party, on the other hand, can usually win some
adjustment in the amount of payment as compensation for the minor
defects in the performance.

Where a party's unintentional failure to perform fully does affect
the essence of the contract, he cannot sue the other party "on the
contract" in order to be paid. To the extent that his work has
benefited the other party, he may recover on the theory of a contract
implied by law (quasi-contract), as explained above.

REMEDIES

The ordinary remedy for breach of contract is money damages.

As we said earlier, a contract should always foresee the possibility
of nonperformance, intentional or unintentional, and should spell out
what is to be done.

Some contracts go so far as to include an agreement on a set amount
of "liquidated damages" which are to be paid in case something goes
wrong. These are acceptable to the courts as long as the amount of
liquidated damages is a reasonable estimation of the harm that would
be done by the breach. If the amount is so excessive as to amount to
a penalty or fine rather than compensation for harm the courts will
ignore the liquidated damages clause and assess damages by actually
measuring at trial the financial harm done by the breach.

You should, unless the provision may pose a worse threat to you than
to the other party, specify in your contracts that if legal action
for breach is necessary, the losing party will pay attorney's fees.

If you and the other party live in different geographical
jurisdictions, you should try to include a provision which says that
the contract is to be enforced under the laws of your jurisdiction.
This makes it possible for any litigation concerning the contract to
take place in a court near your home.

The purpose of damages in suits on contracts is at best to place the
injured party in as nearly as possible the same position he would
have been in had the contract been properly performed, and at least
to restore him as nearly as possible to the position he would have
been in had he made no contract at all. In other words, no one
should suffer loss because another has failed to perform a contract
properly.

Where nonperformance is total, for example, the damaged party should
get back any money he has paid, along with additional money to
compensate him for any actual financial loss which resulted from the
nonperformance. The loss must have been a reasonably foreseeable
result of the nonperformance.

Do not expect, however, to receive money damages designed merely to
punish the breaching party for dishonesty or bad behavior. Such
"punitive damages", which are possibilities in suits for personal
injury and other wrongs, are not available in suits on contracts.
Of course if you can allege that you were defrauded, for example,
then you are suing for wrongdoing beyond the breach of contract,
and you may receive punitive damages.

The principals of damages in contract suits are as numerous as the
problems that can arise from contracts. All we have been able to do
here is to give some idea of the ramifications.

Source: Lectric Law Library.

Boy that is one T that is very long TFR in its entirety...

[migboy]

at the end of the day... you are only as good as your word.

[rsmithsss]

Originally Posted by d-cannon

As annoying and disappointing as it is whenever any party does it... either party has the right to change their mind. However, a seller has a lot more at stake if they conduct business that way.
In everyday business, sellers meet "tire kickers" and window shoppers, but most buyers do not find sellers who do the same, so it would be a stark contrast to the norm.

Perfectly stated.

[nc42acc]

I have had this happen to me and the seller lost a potential customer. I will not do business with that seller in the future. There are too many other sellers that stand behind their word.

[Watchdog]

I believe a man's (or woman's word) is the most important thing. If I make a verbal commitment, I am going to honor that commitment.

I am not a "businessman," but when I have bought watches in the past, I NEVER made an offer that I was not prepared 100% to follow through on.

IMHO, too many buyers "jump the gun," getting too anxious and making offers before doing all their research, finalizing the proper deal, etc. Some, I think, get caught up in the emotions, and I would imagine this is VERY frustrating for sellers.

As for our amazing dealers on this forum, I believe they are doing me a tremendous favor. If people knew how much these dealers have saved off retail, some would not believe it (and no, don't ask because that's between the seller and me).

I am eternally grateful to many on this forum, none more so than DAVIDSW. He has sold me two fantastic watches, followed through with EVERYTHING he said he would.

He has been an asset to me and to many on this forum.

Ultimately, all people (at least on this friendly site) should do business the way David does, with honor and integrity, and never a hint of backing out of a deal.

Could he have made more money from another buyer? I bet he could. But in the end, he lived up to his word, made some profit, and provided a watch to me that I otherwise NEVER would have been able to afford.

Best to all.

[chenx15]

good question David

[Hamish]

I agree with King Kong and the other comments.

While it may sound corny if I say I am going to do something it is like money in the bank.

David also operates on this principal and that is why it was a pleasure to do business with him and I would not hesitate to contact him again when I feel that itch to purchase another watch.

The problem is that some people just do not live up to the high standards that others set for themselves….

[Jimbits76]

Contractual issues are always going to be a problem on an international forum.

Each country could be governed by different laws with regards to trading so I cannot personally see how anybody could quote a "contract" verbal or otherwise unless both parties had an agreement following a deposit changing hands.

I'm gonna get flamed here but I think the sellers are too sensitive.

Haven't you ever tried to sell a used car? The amount of Sundays I have spent dealing with people who will "definitely call me back next week" and then you never hear from them. If you do they only phone to ask you to lower the price.

It's hard and unfair but that's the way things are. Folk have choices and if you lose another sale due to a potential buyer dragging well that's hard luck I guess. that's why in the UK most dealers will sell on a first come first served basis. A deal is only done when the money exchanges hands.

If I personally was selling a watch here, I wouldn't hold it for anybody unless they gave me 20% deposit. If they back out I've been compensated. But that's just me and to be honest, I doubt I'll ever be selling any watches here...I have enough grief

J

[Jimbits76]

Double the fun!

[Jimbits76]

Triple the posts

[lm21]

...until money changes hands, a deal is not a deal. I've tried to sell my car myself before and it SUCKED! Being a seller SUCKS - period! This is because the buyer tends to have the power simply due to the fact that they have the money and the ultimate choice.
Sure, either party can back out of any deal - the real question is who stands to lose what when this happens? The buyer loses a chance to buy the item, but the seller loses their reputation. I think this hurts the seller more than the buyer in the long run...

[springer]

Originally Posted by DAVIDSW

Hi TRF Members,
Within the past week we have had some posts about the "Buyer" backing out of a deal .

I have been thinking about how we as TRF members would feel if the shoe was on the other foot and the "Seller" backed out of the deal....

Here is a situation:

5PM: Buyer contact seller about a watch he has for sale.... After minor negotiations the "Selller" agrees on a price and the deal is agreed on.

9AM NEXT DAY: Buyer contacts seller to inform him of payment being arranged and the seller informs the buyer that he has changed his mind on the price and has increased it to the actual original asking price.

The reason that the buyer gives is irrelevant.. maybe he thinks he can sell for more... maybe somebody offered him more after the buyer spoke to him....

How do we feel about a situation like this.

If the buyer has a right to back out of a deal does the seller also have that right???


Best
DavidSW

Please note: This is a simple discussion and we don't want to see anyone being banned from this

I believe that is why this section is here. I'd post away with their name and let others be the judge. Personally, I wouldn't deal with someone who has this type of habit. Integrity...that is a word I haven't seen mentioned here in any of the posts yet. Some people lack integrity, and yes, business is business, but when someone loses their integrity, they won't have much business.

[springer]

Originally Posted by Bebot

Yes of course the seller have the right to back out of the deal. After all I take this are private sellers. There isn't really any law about verbal agreement on private sales. Happened to me more than once. Like I always say, nothing personal, just business.

Bebot, maybe their isn't any LAW against it, but there is something called integrity that hasn't made it into the consciousness of many people.

Some people have none, and the example given in the original post strikes me of a seller with no integrity.

[Hamish]

I agree with Springer but he is a little more eloquent than me....

[train-time]

You are only as good as your word, and your word is your bond. In the end, that's all you have.

Whether you are the seller or the buyer in this deal I believe the deal should be honored as agreed by both parties. If I agreed to purchase a watch from a seller and he decided not to honor his word and raise the price then I would wish him well and not do business with him again.