Ethical obligation to sell under priced lens at asking price

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>you are advising that it is perfectly acceptable to change the price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The OP didn't say anything about telling callers the price has changed as in your examples. He only discussed changing the advertisement. The reason your analogies do not apply is because you are adding facts to the situation that either do not exist or we are not told about. If the callers were, in fact, told the price is now raised, that can be a source of annoyance as you suggest. Whether that will also be immoral is a separate analysis.</p>

[tomscott]

<blockquote>

<p>If someone wants to take their boat off the market or change the advertised price of an item, they should be free to do so without people, hands on hip, condemning them for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I quess we were just raised differently John. The way I was brought up, if you decided to take your boat off the market before anyone responded it was one thing, but if somone offered to buy it at the advertised price (as they did in this case) then you <strong>are</strong> ethically obligated to sell it<br />I don't think there is any legal obligation to do so but, since when is it ok to screw someone just because it is legal to do so? <br />If the situation had changed, say you were out of work and needed to sell it to feed your kids and now, you were back working again, that would be a little different but, even if that were the case and someone wanted to buy it at the advertised price, I would tell them the situation and hope they would understand. If they still insisted, I would sell it to them at the original advertised price.<br />The only thing that changed in this case is that the OP found out that he may be able to get more money for it.<br />I haven't seen anyone condemning anyone here. The man came on and asked for an opinion. If he can't handle the answers, he shouldn't ask the question.</p>

[tomscott]

<blockquote>

<p>The OP didn't say anything about telling callers the price has changed as in your examples.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And what is he going to tell the 20 callers who have offered to buy it when he does raise the price?<br />The analogies may not fit perfectly as you suggest but, it is a case of right or wrong in every case. You just don't seem to agree with that, and that is your right. It is also <strong>just your opinion</strong>. What makes you the moral authority? As I said, the OP asked a question, surely he expected to get differing points of view on it and not just yours.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>John, I think we all agree that it's OK to change your mind and take something off the market. But taking it off the market <em><strong>not </strong></em>because you changed your mind, but rather because you want to try to get a higher price than what you originally quoted is sneaky and certainly worthy of this ethics discussion.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>There's nothing wrong with raising the price later. The thing to do is to retract your advertisement, wait awhile, say a week or two, then re-advertise at your new price. Letting some time go by will give the marketplace an opportunity to change, and also for you to think about what you want.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, if you've had some contacts or inquiries about it, politely decline.</p>

<p>Regardless of the conditions, commerce is generally voluntary. If you don't feel good about making the sale or buying the item, there's often no reason why you can't stop what you're doing. Unless there's some contract requiring you to continue, you can always just put on the brakes and wait.</p>

<p>There's nothing inherently unethical about the idea of raising a price once you realize that you could be paid more for the item. I think economists call these ideas about pricing "rational" or "irrational." </p>

<p>Rational prices and markets are where the price for something is a fact. Everyone knows the price of tea in China. It's when the item pretty much costs the same no matter who sells it. The driving idea is, That's how much this thing costs.</p>

<p>Irrational prices are markets are like the rational price, plus extra. Like, designer jeans costing the rational price of making a pair of jeans, plus some money extra because those particular pants are "cool." That'd be an irrational price. </p>

<p>Okay, so say you put your item up for sale. By comparing it to what's sold at B&H, you are approaching the problem as though the price of the lens is a rational price. You've looked at the situation and realized that your initial offering was for a rational price that was too low. Now, you want to raise it. So, under those conditions, taking your item off of the market for a while, waiting, then re-entering that item on the market under a new, higher, price later is okay. That is, the raising of the price is being done in response to your perceptions that a higher price is rational.</p>

<p>Emotional motives for raising a price, that may involve some fuzzy ethics. Yet, one of the key observations here was that another entity was selling that same item at a higher price; and, the seller (OP) equated his product as being rationally comparable with what else was for sale in the market.</p>

<p>Just because you are going to charge more doesn't necessarily mean that you are being mean or doing something wrong. Prices go up, and prices go down. If prices never went up because raising prices were always unethical, then we would always see every item sold at the lowest price it was ever offered. As you can see, that doesn't happen.</p>

<p>I think it is okay to raise the price, as long as it is not a quick bait-and-switch. You can do it right. More expensive isn't inherently wrong.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>if somone offered to buy it at the advertised price (as they did in this case) then you <strong>are</strong> ethically obligated to sell it... ...What makes you the moral authority?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its not a matter of you being 'raised differently' or claims of asseting a moral authority. Its understanding what's being discussed. An advertisement is merely an announcement of a desire to sell. That's it. An invitation to make an offer. While it suggests an offer be at the price indicated, it also can invite different offers and counter proposals as well which is routine with advertisements like this. You unwittingly acknowledge this invitation to make an offer scenerio by citing discussing people making offers to buy. Following your logic, there is an ethical obligation to accept offers. If that's what you believe then fine but I don't think you realize that's what you are saying. You seem to be confusing an announcement of a desire to sell as the same thing as an announcement that one will give anyone who completes a task something of value. The latter is a promise. The former is not. That's where your confusion lies.</p>

<p>What next? Deciding to sell something for less that an advertised price or a trade or any combination that may be offered is immoral too? After all, the advertisement, all by itself you believe, is a moral obligation that must be followed to the letter.</p>

[tomscott]

<blockquote>

<p> If prices never went up because raising prices were always unethical, then we would always see every item sold at the lowest price it was ever offered. As you can see, that doesn't happen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It isn't the raising of prices that is unethical, it is the advertising for one price, being contacted by 20 perspective buyers at the advertised price and not selling because you changed your mind. Again I ask, what do you tell those 20 callers who were interested in buying it at the advertised price without, for lack of a better term, lying to them. The difference people fail to see is that a retail store raises and lowers prices on a regular basis but, they don't advertise for one price and then try and sell it for another. They wouldn't stay in business very long with those type business practices.</p>

[mart_e]

<p>Couple of things - the offer / acceptance required to for a contract at point of sale is an offer from the buyer (or tender) to make a purchase at a given price - if this is accepted by the vendor - then a contract has been established. The advert is simply an advertisment for someone to tender an offer and as such does not form part of the contract.</p>

<p>In this case it would appear that there is no contract to break - you are perfectly able to change your mind - particularly if the perceived value of the item has gone up (as in a comparison with the 'as new' item). Must happen all the time with items like antiques where something is put up for sale and then increased in price once a vendor realises it's true value.</p>

<p>There is no obligation for you to sell - you can simply withdraw it and repost at a higher price. If the demand is there for the new price - it will still sell.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>it is the advertising for one price, being contacted by 20 perspective buyers at the advertised price and not selling because you changed your mind.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the standard, someone can advertise an item in a classified ad for $10 and later learn the market value is really worth $10,000.00 but they will be a moral failure if they take the item off the market don't accept offers to buy at $10 and bind themselves to such a sale.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what do you tell those 20 callers who were interested in buying it at the advertised price without, for lack of a better term, lying to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are, indeed, much better terms. The OP didn't lie to anyone. You just told us there was a change of the mind. Now you tell us the OP's intent is about deceiving people "[l]ying to them". You keep changing the facts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>retail store raises and lowers prices on a regular basis but, they don't advertise for one price and then try and sell it for another. They wouldn't stay in business very long</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We're altering the facts again leading to another false analogy. No one has told us that any callers were told that the sale price will be higher. The OP's proposed scenario, as we are told, is advertising a new price. The callers didn't make a sale on time. I pulled in to a gas station the other day based on the price shown on the signs. I didn't know the attendant was changing the signs because the price changed. I didn't get there on time. There was no moral failure. And that's an industry where there are strong regulations against deceptive pricing. No one is being snookered here.</p>

[tomscott]

<p>John you really are missing the (my) point here. No one said anyone has lied to anyone yet. Some have recommended that he just tell those 20 callers that the item has already sold. That would be lying to them. No has said that he told anyone the price would be higher yet, but many have suggested that he do just that. That would be (in my opinion) unethical. I have not altered any facts and, I haven't accused the OP of doing anything wrong. There are however, plenty on here that are advising him to do what I would consider to be wrong. He even said himself that: "I feel obligated to honor my asking price". Why is it so important to you to convince him that it is not necessary to go with what he already obviously feels to be the right thing to do?</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[john_h.1]

<p>I forgot to include the word "considering" but the point is the same. There is no information that the OP is <em>considering</em> lying either.</p>

<p>The suggestions referenced in the original post were to re-list. To advertise a new price, not to create a false portrayal in order to trick people in to calling. Bait and Switch as one contributor described it.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I don't suggest there be a lie told saying that the lens is sold. If there will be a new advertisement and there is communication with the callers responding to the old advertisement, an apology can be given for the inconvenience created but that the item is no longer for sale for that price. If the seller makes no attempt to sell the item until after a new advertisement is made, the seller commits no sin. Inconvenience and annoyance probably, but that's a different issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why is it so important to you to convince him that it isnot necessary to go with what he already obviously feels to be the right thing to do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You keep introducing facts not at issue or in existence. First, Its not 'obvious' that it was deemed the right thing to do since OP asked whether or not it was. That's the whole point of the thread, the OP was asking, not announcing. Second, I have not tried to convince him to do or not do anything. I merely discussed the question of whether there is some moral wrong with re-listing the lens. Where is my recommendation that he deviate from the conclusion he makes? Nowhere.</p>

<p> </p>

[arniemilowsky]

<p>Should go through with the original offering. Why? Instant karma's going to get you....</p>

[tomscott]

<blockquote>

<p>You keep introducing facts not at issue or in existence.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see where I have done anything of the kind. You have insisted on trying to twist my words through out this thread to mean something that I am not saying. I tell you what John, have it your way. I will not waste my time any longer trying to convince you of anything.</p>

 

[mikemason]

<p>I wonder how many of those 20 buyers actually want the lens. If I saw an item listed at $250 below the going rate and was confident I could resell it, I might well buy it. The OP has realised he's about to give $250 away to a smart reseller and wants to change his mind. Nothing wrong with that.</p>

<p>As a legitimate buyer who wanted that lens, I'd be thrilled to have $250 knocked off the price. I also wouldn't be terribly upset if the seller withdrew his offer and told me he'd realised it was underpriced. I might even offer more money straight away. Those 20 people recognize a bargain. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>If its any consolation Tom, I was wrong and the OP did, indeed, make a conclusion but is asking what others think. Apparently to evaluate his conclusion.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>If someone advertises an item in a classified ad for $10 and later learn the market value is really worth $10,000.00 will there be a moral failure if they take the item off the market don't accept offers to buy at $10 and bind themselves to such a sale? Does it matter if the price differential, as in the OP scenerio, is less?</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Give it to charity and be done with it.</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>Does it matter if the price differential, as in the OP scenerio, is less?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes it does. There is no obvious mistake and the sum of money concerned is plausible. This is an inappropriately extreme example to the point that it deflects from the issue.</p>

<p> Its time to decide what sort of person you are. I hope that in your position I'd just decide to sell it for what I asked. </p>

<p>OP, it depends what you're looking for in making this post. If you're looking to find people who say that you could ( and presumably that they would) do just about anything to maximise the price you get from the lens then you've found them. If you want to find people who say that contract issues aside they'd feel obliged to sell at the price you said you wanted, then you've found them too. So what happens now? Its as much down to you as it ever was. You say you feel obligated. Is it worth feeling bad for a couple of hundred dollars? If I was jobless and living in a favela then the answer might be yes, but then i wouldn't be planning to buy another lens for $1600 either. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes it does. There is no obvious mistake and the sum of money concerned is plausible. This is an inappropriately extreme example to the point that it deflects from the issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its an exceptionally appropriate example to flesh out one's position. Ethical scholars use these sort of examples to test a principle all the time. It doesn't deflect the issue at all. It goes straight to the heart of it.</p>

<p>In the hypothetical, the price difference ratio is much larger but the scenario exactly the same. The "mistake" is exactly the same. In both, the seller discovers the item desired to be sold has a fair market value higher than the advertised price.</p>

<p>As you say, the price difference matters.</p>

<p>According to your response, the issue of whether there is a ethical obligation to sell an item that is advertised, if there is a buyer offering to pay the advertised price, if it is subsequently discovered by the seller to be worth more money all boils to to one lone factor. How much money vis a vis the fair market value is involved. The logic of that in inescapable. I'm not saying whether that is good or bad, just that your moral position is determined based on the amount of difference as to its fair market value. Somewhere, with respect to advertisement price vs. fair market value price, you draw the line. One one side, selling an advertised item to an interested buyer is an ethical obligation. On the other, it is not.</p>

[tomscott]

<p>Semantics. Right and wrong will always be right and wrong, regardless of how you spin it.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>Look at this the other way, from the buyer's perspective. If you found an item that's advertised for substantially less than its market value, would you feel an ethical obligation to pay the actual value of the item, or would you be content knowing that you paid the amount the seller was asking, regardless of market value, so all is fair?</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p>If you found an item that's advertised for substantially less than its market value, would you feel an ethical obligation to pay the actual value of the item, or would you be content knowing that you paid the amount the seller was asking, regardless of market value, so all is fair?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My first thoughts would be that there is a fault that the seller didn't want to disclose and that the pricing decision was deliberate not accidental. I wouldn't buy without communicating with the seller, not to protect him, but to find out what is wrong with the item.<br>

But the OP's situation in this thread does not seem to me to be a "substantially less" selling price than market value. As the debate with Mr Henneberger above clarifies, the extent of the discrepancy between advertised price and "Fair price" (whatever that might be) is important. So I'm going to think differently from some people because of that. </p>

<p>If you're going to consider from the potential buyer's viewpoint, I think you should think about how you'd feel about a seller who advertises an item at one price and then refuses to sell at that price, re-listing at a higher price. A complicating factor here is that its entirely possible that some of the OP's potential buyers may be trying to buy for resale having sniffed a posssible bargain. Possibly unreasonably, I'm less inclined to feel guilty about depriving a reseller of profit than I would about refusing to sell to someone who wanted to use it. I might even talk myself into a view that if the item was going to end up being resold at a higher price than it might as well be me that does that. Of course <em>knowing</em> rather than <em>suspecting</em> is an issue here. </p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>You got 20 offers but you didn't agree to sell it to any one of them right? I would just repost it and not really feel guilty ... but if you already agreed to sell it to one of them, then personally I would honour the lower price and sell it.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Whew. I happen to work--part time--in retail. If we advertise something at the 'wrong' price; i.e, a price at which we did not intend to sell it, we are NOT obligated to sell. We print what is legally called a 'retraction'. OTOH, if I forget to take down a sign when a sale is over then I will sell at the signed price. Why? Because I wish to keep a customer. If the OP listed his lens on the Internet, he should be aware that retracting his offer to sell may be legal, but it is NOT advisable. Will he ever want to sell another item? He may have problems if half a dozen Internet fora have posts calling him out for his action.</p>

<p>In the particular culture in which I was raised, it is definitely not acceptable to be an 'Indian giver' (no offense meant to Native Americans or citizens of Mumbai). The OP didn't make an accidental mistake; he did his research, set his price, and now he wishes to get more. That's plain wrong, in MY opinion. What B&H sells the lens for is only a guide. Remember, they offer a warranty, the right to return the item for refund or exchange if the buyer got a 'bad copy' (right).</p>

<p>When I was in college, my Honda threw a rod. A friend of my mother offered to sell me his Volvo for a very good price. Because the car was a lot bigger than I was used too, and used more gas, I told the seller I would like to sleep on it. He agreed. In the morning I called and told him I would take the car. He replied that he had sold it. "I got more money, too!" Nothing illegal had transpired. (Perhaps in New York State something illegal <em>had</em> transpired, but it would be difficult and expensive to prove.) Needless to say, my mother had one less friend.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>That's an interesting story at the end but it has nothing to do with the situation here.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>he should be aware that retracting his offer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some people are confused about what a advertisement of this kind is. It is an announcement that there is interest in selling an item. An invitation to make an offer. That's it. There is no promise of any kind. There are no entitlements granted to anyone. Its is not even an offer. There is no 'Indian giving' (a concept so removed from this situation its bizarre that it is even brought up). Unlike the story above, no arrangements or agreements with anybody were made or exist. Others accurately realize that reaching an actual agreement with someone to buy the item creates a new situation. One not brought up by the OP.</p>

<p> </p>