Ethical obligation to sell under priced lens at asking price

[mike_hitchen]

<p>I have bought hifi advertised on the internet and this happens occasionally and would do it myself. Though whether I did would be more to do with whether I can be bothered and that, as John H says, becomes a playoff of the amount of increased profit versus the level of hassle (re-advertising, how desparately I need the money, how I perceive my reputation among the potential buyers etc). And I would have no problem if someone else did it - I may curse them for spoiling my chance of a good deal and if it came up again I may exchange a few e-mails about how serious they are this time; but I would not hold a grudge over it. I have also not given the sale to someone I know (or suspect) is a dealer looking for a quick buck - I wuld rather give it to someone who would benefit from it inother ways</p>

[wogears]

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, I guess some people aren't lawyers. When they see that Sears has a lawn tractor advertised for USD 500, they think that it can be <em>bought</em> for that price! Silly fools. Sears is only <em>interested</em> in selling it. If the store has twenty in stock, and fifty people show up, why they can expect to pay a lot more, right?</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it has everything to do with the situation here. People who are not attorneys will be rather upset with the OP.</p>

[tom_cheshire]

<p>Legally, you have no obligation to sell. You have the right to retract an offer to sell. There is no "contract" as others have implied. In fact, listing anything for sale is considered an offer to sell, not an obligation to sell. If you accept someone's offer to buy then you are obligated to some extent but not entirely. In the business law books we were made to study at college there were lots of similar cases and, even in business, everything is considered an "offer to sell". (Which was a great relief to the guy at the yard sale who advertised ham radio eq. and that he opens at 8 but they were being sold when I arrived at 7:45 and I said I was going to sue for damages since I had suffered a financial loss by his action and then, laughingly, explained the "offer to sell" thingy. Yeah, that guy had an ugly face on him. Didn't think it was funny.). </p>

[lintrathen]

<p>Dave..... in the big world of "retailing" an advertised item <strong>has</strong> to be sold at the advertised price, invariably to the first buyer who responds to the advertisement. In your case, when you needed to lower the price in order to sell it, you had to be happy with the reduced price you advertised. Sell the lens and sleep well in the hope that the directors of B&H don't, due to their unscrupulous price hike.<br />Incidentally, in Australia, businesses are monitored for price increasing.... we are not at liberty to increase prices on stock that already has an established selling price. I believe that you had established a selling price and therefore are obliged to sell it for the offered price.<br />Regards</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p><br>

Grayham - I think Aussie law is pretty much in line with UK law and if so you may be mistaken.</p>

<p>Imagine this: you see an advert for an item in a shop and you walk in to buy it. As youwalk in he has just sold the last one. If the 'advert' was a contract you could sue him for breach of contract. On that prinicple alone it was established a hundred years go that the advetisement is an offer for someone to buy. And in fact, even if the shop owner has some in stock he can still refuse to sell it to you. to go further the (potential) purchaser is free to offer a lower price that that shown (if it wasnt all bartering and haggling would be illegal !) . In reality the sale is contractually agreed without any words being exchanged because if it is being bought at the price shown eveyone is happy.</p>

<p>Dave..... in the big world of "retailing" an advertised item <strong>has</strong> to be sold at the advertised price, invariably to the first buyer who responds to the advertisement.<br>

In UK (don't know about Oz) this is still a common misconception. All can do is report them to trading standards for misrepresentation.<br>

we are not at liberty to increase prices on stock that already has an established selling price</p>

<p>So they are still selling things at 1950 prices? :o) <br>

I believe we have something similar in UK to prevent profiteering. The benchmark for the established selling price is taken as the price at the time they bought from their suppliers. So if they buy stock at £100 wholesale per unit they establish a selling price. If the wholesale price goes up to £200, they cannot increase their selling price until they have sold everything they bought at the lower price. No idea how they police it but some actions have been brought against profiteers.</p>

<p>But as has been said, this case is not about law, it is about your own personal ethics.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Analogies need to have the same relevant fact pattern contextually as the situation being compared to actually be an analogy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When they see that Sears has a lawn tractor advertised for USD 500, they think that it can be <em>bought</em> for that price! Silly fools. Sears is only <em>interested</em> in selling it. If the store has twenty in stock, and fifty people show up, why they can expect to pay a lot more, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The above compares selling and running out of a product and raising the price to someone who arrives to buy to retracting an ad in the first place. The OP situation does not feature product being sold to some buyers not others, has not sold any product based on the ad, nor told callers they need to pay more (bait & switch). All of these differences involve situations that go beyond or involve more conduct than a mere advertisement. The OP's question involves a scenario that prevent all these things from happening. The OPs question involves a retraction. The situation described above does not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it has everything to do with the situation here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The story we were told about the car, while somewhat vague, involved personal relationships which bolstered an implied promise to hold off on selling until the son 'slept on it'. Ordinarily, if such a seller did not intend to wait, they would announce an intent to sell in the interim if the opportunity arises. That differs from the OP situation in that it involved actual discussions and negotiation with a potential buyer, a chance for an inspection of the item, an agreement or at least and implied agreement to hold off on a sale, no retractions, a sale was actually made, the seller wasn't given a new opportunity or chance to purchase the car. Several major differences that introduce different sets of ethical questions. Several additional questions. The story cannot possibly have "everything to do with the situation here". Its comparing apples and oranges after changing up and adding all those extra criteria.</p>

<p>The essence of the situation is if retracting an advertisement is, in of itself, immoral or merely a potential customer relation issue, a separate issue altogether. These other stories and hypotheticals go beyond the conduct of an advertisement. No legalistic analysis is needed. Just don't change or add facts to the situation. Is retracting an advertisement immoral? That is the question.</p>

[timwitt]

<p>Well Dave, what was your final decision and action?</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>The most salient points:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>You are not breaking any laws.</li>

<li>Sounds like you want to increase the price.</li>

<li>If you do, you may get more money -- "MAY"</li>

<li>If you do, you may be burning bridges at that marketplace -- "MAY"</li>

<li>Is the POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY of #4 worth the POTENTIAL RISK of #5? </li>

</ol>

<p>My $0.02. Ethical dilemma aside, if you need the money now, take the offer. If you can wait, cancel the ad, hold on to the lens for 2-3 months then re-list.</p>

 

[fishit]

<p>Asking price is just that, it does not obligate you to sell at that price. At one time houses were put on the market at a asking price and people bid higher to get the property. The lens is worth more than the asking price, so why would you sell it for less than what you can get for a product?</p>

[jonderson]

<p>The mere fact that you are asking others what you should do, when you already admit to recognizing an obligation, tells me enough about you to know that I would personally never do business with you, nor steer business your way. <br>

You offered something for sale at a specified price. To rescind that offer, for whatever reason, is an indication that <em>at the very least</em> you were not properly prepared to make the offer in the first place...meaning the offer itself was not made entirely ethically. But to rescind the offer for the reasons you specify is indeed, without question, an unethical action.<br>

My feeling is that you are only asking this forum the question because you are searching for some sort of attractive and applicable justification for withdrawing your offer simply so that you won't feel guilty. That, too, is unethical.</p>

 

[james_kennedy9]

<p>I would merely admit that I hadn't done my homework and was not aware of its fair market value. I would say that I am taking it off the market until I have had a chance to re-evaluate, and that I will list it at a price fair to all parties. You did not act with malice aforethought. You have merely gotten new information.<br>

You were not trying to hoodwink anyone. It is awkward, but I don't think it is dishonorable.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>the offer itself was not made entirely ethically.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's an ethical duty to know the current and exact fair market value of one's property before selling it? That's a new one.</p>

<p>BTW, the OP didn't discuss anything about rescinding an offer. There was no information given that an offer was made to any caller. </p>

[davelokken]

<p>To me, the following seems a bit harsh, since the suggestion to sell the lens at a higher price came from two professional photographers, both with 20+ years experience. If not for their advice, I would have simply sold the lens and called it a lesson learned.<br>

Also, since I have received 60 responses covering the full spectrum from the response below, to advice favoring opening the sale to competitive bid, and triggered a massive number of threads, I'd say its a valid question...<br>

"Subject: Ethical obligation to sell under priced lens at asking price<br>

The mere fact that you are asking others what you should do, when you already<br />admit to recognizing an obligation, tells me enough about you to know that <strong>I</strong><br /><strong>would personally never do business with you, nor steer business your way. </strong><br />You offered something for sale at a specified price. To rescind that offer,<br />for whatever reason, is an indication that at the very least you were not<br />properly prepared to make the offer in the first place...meaning the offer<br />itself was not made entirely ethically. <strong>But to rescind the offer for the</strong><br /><strong>reasons you specify is indeed, without question, an unethical action.</strong><br />My feeling is that you are only asking this forum the question because you are<br />searching for some sort of attractive and applicable justification for<br />withdrawing your offer simply so that you won't feel guilty. That, too, is<br />unethical".</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Dave. Its not harsh for the reason you quote. Its just harsh. But I guess the fact is that people think differently about issues and where there's no real right or wrong, as in cases like this, you need to look for the arguments that resonate with you, and ignore the unhelpful. </p>

[davelokken]

<p>If nothing else, the question certainly generated a lot of conversation! <br>

Selling price stays at $1350.00</p>

[sanjoy_chakraborty]

<p>I am one of the people who responded to Dave's ad. I wouldn't think poorly of him if he decided that his original asking price was too low and he later changed his ad to reflect prevalent reflect market conditions more accurately. To my knowledge Dave is not a dealer but an enthusiast like myself, and is not bound to the same standards as a retail store. If on the other hand I found a piece of equipment advertised at a certain price in my local newspaper and the retail store running the ad would not honor their advertised price (a practice some of us in the photography community are familiar with), I would find the store's conduct to be unethical and would actively seek to persuade others from buying from said retail store. In some jurisdictions such false advertisements might be illegal also, and actionable under law.<br />In any event, kudos to Dave for sticking to his original asking price.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

<I>"To my knowledge Dave is not a dealer but an enthusiast like myself, and is not bound to the same standards as a retail store. </I>"<P>

 

Obviously, seeing his post of 2010; 01:41 p.m,. Dave has set himself to a higher standard. Good for him.

[ShunCheung]

<p>So, would it be perfectly ok for someone to take advantage of Dave's offer, buys that lens for $1350, then immediately turns around and sells it for $1600 (or whatever the current market value is) to make a profit?</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Yes, that would be perfectly okay.

[james_kennedy9]

<p>There was no original intent to deceive or cheat. Your intent was to offer a product at what you decided was a fair market price. You received more current information that your original estimate was in error. You corrected the mistake and are still offering the product at a fair market price. </p>

<p>I see no unethical behavior.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, that would be perfectly okay.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As would an original owner placing an advertisement an item on the market for one price and then placing a new advertisement on the market for another. The fact that a different person is putting an item on the market as in Shun's scenario makes no difference. Unless an assurance or agreement with a specific buyer was made for them to purchase the item at a set price or the advertisement was intended to be deceitful, there simply is no duty, of any kind, for an original owner or a new owner not to change an advertised price.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

If I were to shake hands on a deal and the next day the seller said that he changed his mind and wanted a higher price, I would have nothing more to do with that seller. In this instance there was no "handshake" . If I were willing to pay the asking price and stuck out my hand saying, "By golly, you've got a deal" and then the seller were to say, "Wait a minute, let me think about that" I may be disappointed but I couldn't really fault the seller. On careful thought, this does seem to be the latter situation.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If I were willing to pay the asking price and stuck out my hand saying, "By golly, you've got a deal" and then the seller were to say, "Wait a minute, let me think about that" I may be disappointed but I couldn't really fault the seller. On careful thought, this does seem to be the latter situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are definite differences which reasonably make a difference to many people . We are not even addressing those situations. Here, there was no discussion with anybody. While calls were made showing potential interest was out there, nothing in the story went beyond the advertisement stage itself. There was no interaction on which to base a moral conclusion one way or another. If changing an advertisement is seen as a sin, then the view is either extreme or based on incorrect assumptions about what an advertisement of this sort is. If the ad said the first person willing to pay the price gets the item and someone comes forward willing to pay the price, then one crosses that line of interacting and making a bargain with someone occurs.</p>

[davelokken]

<p>Thanks to everyone for a lively discussion.<br>

Lens has been sold at $1350.00</p>