About selling a lens

[pensacolaphoto]

If someone placed a posting about selling a lens, in which the lens

is fully described and the price is given, and if I posted that I

wanted that lens, would a message from the seller to me, stating that

I could buy the lens from him constitute a "binding" sale? The way I

see it is that I stated I want the lens and the seller wrote me that

I could have it. Somehow I saw this as a final agreement. Am I wrong?

[jose f.]

Sounds right to me, but I don't know how you would enforce it.

[stuart_richardson]

I think if we are talking about "the law", then as long as no money has changed hands either

party can back out at any time. It may not be polite or classy, but I don't think it is illegal.

[pensacolaphoto]

I was not meaning any legality. The seller simply stopped sending messages to me and after two days he just said : "first come first served." I found this rather annoying since I am staying away from ebay and buy from here and similar websites in which photographers and collectors exchange/sell/buy equipment based on words of honor and respect.

[SCL]

Perhaps the seller thought you weren't a serious buyer if you hadn't come to a final agreement in a short period of time (I'm reading into your comment about multiple messages over several days). IMHO if the terms weren't spelled out and accepted by both sides, then really no final agreement had been reached.

[pensacolaphoto]

Stephen: The final cost was posted and I sent him messages in which I asked for his preferred method of payment. There was nothing left to finalize the sale. All terms have been agreed to.

[paul_chan4]

Looks like the ingredients of an offer and acceptance are all in place to constitute a legal contract. Performance-wise, you remit the fund and seller ships it out on receipt of payment. The seller never make the offer conditional nor communicate any withdrawal before acceptance. Then again, in e-commerce it may not work out this intended way. Misrepresentation and outright fraud are only two of the obvious risks for armchair trading.

[Gus Lazzari]

According to a famous Attorney in the Los Angeles talk radio circuit. (Bill Handle of "Handle on the Law")

 

"In the absence of suffering a monetary type loss, you have no civil recourse."

 

Sad but true folks...

[back_alley_.]

I will not dwell on it.

 

"Raid W. Amin"

 

joe

[paul_ebbe]

There isn't enough information to determine if there is any agreement. IMO you have a reasonable expectation but that is about it.

 

As an example, someone offers a lens but states they prefer to sell it to someone in England. I write saying I'm in the US and will pay your asking price. They may write back and say I can have the lens. At that point I don't see any agreement for a sale. Probably not what happened but it is a scenario based on your first statement.

 

Otherwise, if something doesn't work out, maybe it's a good thing.

[al_kaplan1]

Huh? What does Raid's name have to do with anything? A perfectly good name pronounced Rah-eed', not Rade.

[SCL]

Raid - if he's as unreliable as it appears, you're probably better off not having sent him the money. You might want to rethink occasional use of the major auction site after this experience. Rogues exist everywhere - this site isn't an exception. What is an exception, though, is people not acting in good faith...both here and on the major auction site.

[pensacolaphoto]

Back Alley: I will not dwell on it directly with the seller nor with the posting in which names are mentioned, but I wanted to find out from people here whether I was right to feel cheated out or not.

[back_alley_.]

you're feelings are your own and no one can tell how you 'should' feel.

 

this is sour grapes...

[pensacolaphoto]

I wouldn't say "sour grapes" but simply a disappointment of being treated in such a way. Maybe it wasn't intended, and maybe it is better this way.

[jtdnyc]

Raid

 

Lots of misinformation about the law in this thread.

 

Whether you had a binding agreement with the seller would depend on exactly what was said in the messages between you. The specific wording is very important. It's hard to tell from your characterization of the messages, such as "...posted that I wanted the lens..." and "...I COULD buy the lens..." [emphasis added]. "Could"? That sounds conditional. Could...if what? If you were the first to send the money? Or to pay by a specific means of payment? That's why the exact wording is so important.

 

No money need have changed hands for there to be a binding contract. His offer to sell, followed by your acceptance, or your offer to buy, followed by his acceptance, would ordinarily be binding. But, again, it really depends on the specific wording of the messages.

 

In the case of an overseas seller in a country with different legal principles, there would be the additional question of whose law applies.

 

Regardless of what a radio expert may have said, there are indeed injuries other than monetary injuries for which money damages may be awarded (though probably not in this case), and there are remedies other than money damages that are available in some civil cases (such as ordering the seller to complete the transaction if the item is unique). In any event, if you now have to pay more for the lens from another source, you have in fact suffered a monetary loss for which a remedy is available, at least in theory -- though, to be realistic, probably not worth pursuing.

 

I think the best advice you received is that you should consider yourself lucky that you didn't get stuck trying to consummate the transaction with an seller who, by your description of events, seems unreliable.

 

I hope you find the lens in question somewhere else, and at a better price.

 

It's been many years since I left the practice of law, but this is pretty basic stuff.

[thomas_cierzo]

You're kidding. I have to read about this on this forum too. Let it go.

[alexander_nichols]

Guess what? I had the same experience just last month, the first time I tried to buy in this forum.

 

Raid probably did not send in his money fast enough. From the seller's point of view, s/he has a right to sell to the first person who pays. OTOH, the prospective buyer also has a right to be informed if there are other people who has offered to buy, especially if that buyer was the first to respond. In my case, the seller wasn't upfront about this until someone else (whom I believe answered to the ad AFTER I did) had allegedly sent payment. I guess it was the same for Raid.

 

Unfair to the first respondent? I very much believe so. The last-second notice was a hugh disappointment, but at least I was given the unexpected bad news before my payment.

 

So either cough up ASAP or avoid the same seller, AND ask right away whether there are other "contenders."

[vivek iyer]

Sorry to hear about your disappointment. Don't dwell on it.

 

Plenty of (fish) lenses to go around for everyone.

[canfred]

Hi Raid , if the seller advertised here please let us know. Still I do not think you had a binding agreement , since the seller could come up with all sorts of excuses. The item got damaged or such like.

[thomas_t]

There is no way for us 3rd party outsiders to know exactly what went on. Sounds like a lot of miscommunication went on. So let's be careful before we get out the pitchforks and wake the town elder ;-)

 

For instance, Raid said:

 

>>> The final cost was posted and I sent him messages in which I ASKED FOR HIS PREFERRED METHOD OF PAYMENT. There was nothing left to finalize the sale. All terms have been agreed to. <<< (emphasis added)

 

Anyone see the glaringly obvious problem here?

 

The very first sentence admits that the payment method had not been agreed to. Thereby directly contradicting the last two sentences suggesting that "all" terms had been agreed to. That probably explains the confusion and miscommunication.

 

In any case, we don't know. So let's all take a breather and relax a bit and let these two work it out like gentlemen. Let's not Scooter Libby anyone until we know the facts ;-)

 

Hopefully the parties can work out this difference in private, good luck to both of you.

[pensacolaphoto]

It's best to let things go. Thanks for your thoughtful responses here. I am sure that were no bad intentions by anyone.

[david j.lee]

raid, can you please send me an e-mail with the name of this person?

[tito sobrinho]

...name of this person? Why?

[pensacolaphoto]

There is no need to continue this thread. I received many replies (above) with informative views, and I am content with the situation.