FS: Enlightened Equipment 0 degree top quilt

**Gary_R** · 09-22-2012, 10:19

I see both sides.. My only issue is it allows people to just add "Pending Questions" to everything and ties stuff up. If your selling stuff, generally you need the cash.
And how do I know you don't log in only one time a day and I might end up spending three days answering questions. When the other guy just said ILL TAKE IT.
One I don't know how its going to work out till I answer all this stuff.. The other its done and out of my hair.

I say this because it has happened before.
Its a tricky issue.. I personally would find it annoying to always see
"Ill take it Pending Questions" Followed by a never mind all the time.

**catalyst** · 09-22-2012, 11:38

Originally Posted by mbnow

The difference here is that a "i'll take it, pending questions" is NOT an offer, its a commitment to buy based on the price and description of an item, but just needing to clarify some details. Given the lack of details many of the items for sale here have, i think thats reasonable.

That's kind of the point. What is the purpose of requiring an "I'll take it" post in the first place? What does that mean? It means you're entitled to the item because you are the first person making an "offer" on the product. I think we just have a difference of opinion here so I'll leave it at that.

As far as contract law is concerned (I'm an attorney as well), Saab hit it on the head. A commitment is worth nothing. There has to be an offer and acceptance to have a binding contract. "I'll take it pending questions" would not be construed as acceptance of an offer. The mods can choose to have rules contrary to basic contract law (it's their forum), but I don't personally think it's wise.

**lilricky** · 09-22-2012, 12:14

I think the way this should have gone down is that the interested buyer should have asked questions first, then if he/she was satisfied with the answers, a "I'll take it" should have been issued then. Thats the way we've done it in the past and has worked well. Its unfair both to the seller and other potential buyers to issue a "I'll take it, unless I don't want to take it" sort of claim. Just my 2 cents.

**Sidewinder** · 09-22-2012, 12:47

Originally Posted by lilricky

I think the way this should have gone down is that the interested buyer should have asked questions first, then if he/she was satisfied with the answers, a "I'll take it" should have been issued then. Thats the way we've done it in the past and has worked well. Its unfair both to the seller and other potential buyers to issue a "I'll take it, unless I don't want to take it" sort of claim. Just my 2 cents.

I agree. If you ask questions in the post it can help other potential buyers decide to make an offer instead of tying up the item. Once someone is satisfied with the answers/description of the item only then should They make a firm commitment and offer to purchase. More fair to everyone involved.

S

**mbnow** · 09-22-2012, 13:14

Well with a couple of lawyers here arguing the the letter of the law.... i think i'll bow out of this debate and let the mods decide.
But i will say, this is a moderated forum and the UCC applys to business and contracts. Not a non profit, moderated website, where transactions are between two non business entities.

so its either:

A) follow the exact letter of the law. Contract binding "i'll take it" no ifs ands or buts. With the seller seeking damages for item not sold to first "i'll take it" post.

or B) a friendly, general understanding that an "i'll take it pending questions" is exactly what it means. If buyer is not responding fast enough then only fair for seller to move on to next "i'll take it" post.

just my 65 cents !!

And of course if two lawyers are agreeing on this matter.... it MUST BE WRONG!!

Matt.

**DemostiX** · 09-22-2012, 13:28

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I agree. If you ask questions in the post it can help other potential buyers decide to make an offer instead of tying up the item. Once someone is satisfied with the answers/description of the item only then should They make a firm commitment and offer to purchase. More fair to everyone involved.

S

Items need not be tied up. Once a serious buyer / seller relationship is established though PM they are both obligated to bring it to conclusion rapidly. That is in the interest of the market. I assume buyers who announce "I'll take it" really will. Last spring I recall a series of esteemed members here who claimed conclusively the same deluxe item about which there could have been no question, and at least two backed out, maybe more. That is not good for the market, and was certainly not fair for the seller. Everyone else watching could be left to wonder if these smart folks had learned privately of defect in the item, when, tbomk, there were none.

That the seller had a legal claim may be true, but pointless for everyone, and for the market. No seller is going to collect damages here or force a sale under contract law.

Asking all questions publicly serves the market, but not the interested buyer, who then must sit by attentively while someone else claims the item the value of which he has helped established as soon as the seller posts his / her public reply.

I understand the rules requiring a listed price make for a more orderly market, and make more difficult unfair discrimination against buyers by the seller. While not part of this listing and its problems, I would hope that mods will not permit "or best offer" to be included in listing. "Best offer" is understood, but someone who makes a good-faith offer for full price should always have priority as long as that rule is in effect.

This is a good market, to the best of my knowledge and following the experience of buying $1500 + previously owned gear. By good I mean high prices, high quality, and good service from sellers.

**Gary_R** · 09-22-2012, 13:38

You could then say "as I understand it it is x by x size" If so "Ill take it".
Then your question isn't helping anyone.
And the seller can simple say Sold if that's the case.

**Sol_Invictus** · 09-22-2012, 14:21

I am REALLY disappointed in how this turned out. Of course, I don't have any issues with Catalyst or Sidewinder, I'm glad Sidewinder got a good quilt and I'm very sorry to Catalyst that this got tied up in the confusion.

Quoting contract law is silly on a non profit internet forum as applied to private sales. If the forum rules specify an "I'll take it" claim, then I would think all "I'll take it" statements would fall in sequential order. If I say, "I'll take it as long as it comes with an elephant," the seller can decline my offer and move to the next in line. No tie ups, and as paypal payments are instant, it's not like the seller is actually inconvienenced. If say, 24 hours passes with no response from buyer, the seller could choose to move on.

My questions would have been asked before sending money regardless, specifically an inquiry about if the seller's personal experience as to the efficiency of the temp rating. The "pending questions" was me trying to be courteous to others interested to indicate there was the potential that I would withdraw my interest if the rating was off.

Either way, the solution here is simple. I will be sure to make non conditional "I'll take it" statements in the future.

Sorry to all for the confusion.

**Jcavenagh** · 09-22-2012, 14:31

EDIT: I did not see SI's post above until I actually posted so the below post is not a direct reply to SI. I do not think an apology is required as SI was acting in good faith. Actually, if this didn't happen now, it would have happened sooner or later. I think this will help the board avoid confusion in the future.
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................................
I am another lawyer who has worked with the UCC for 30 years now. I agree with the other lawyers here that looking at the UCC is appropriate.

The point is not that someone would sue or be entitled to damages. I think we all agree that is highly unlikely in this situation.

The point, I believe, is that the UCC, and its interpretive body of law, has been developed by a very thorough deliberative process spanning a wide geographic area and a long time. A whole lot of people who deal regularly with the sales of goods have put a lot of thought into the principles set forth by the UCC and have argued both pro and con on how these sorts of transactions and situations should turn out. Over this long and voluminous period of development the framework of the UCC has been refined time and again. People have come to know what results it calls for under specific types of situations. That allows buyers and sellers to be able to act with a reasonable degree of certainty as to what will result from any given action. It is that predictability of consistent results that fosters an open and smooth running marketplace. We lawyers generally want predictability for our clients so that they can get on with their business confident that they will get the results they wish to achieve.

I believe that the history of the UCC, and the basic contract theories embodied within it, can be helpful to the moderators as they interpret and apply Rule 10 to this set of facts.

I wish to compliment the mature, polite, and respectful manner in which this entire debate has been conducted. Many of us know that such civility may not prevail on some other online bulletin boards.

Thanks, everyone!