Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: BoomerD
While the basice of what you say are true, if someone offers me $100 for the dog (and hasn't paid for it yet) , and someone else offers me $120 for the dog, then obviously, I'm gonna take the higher offer. The guy who offered $100 is gonna have to either beat the higher offer, or lose the opportunity...But of course, it the first guy offers and pays the $100, then it's a done deal.
OBO can easily become an auction on either side of the asking price...
The advertised $100 price is legally binding. So only an idiot would offer more than $100. If the first person offers $100, the deal is done (assuming the seller obeys the advertizing laws). A second person cannot jump in and offer $120, negating the first offer.
An advertisement is just an invitation for purchase. It is not a legal binding contract.
Nope...not legally binding. Look at real estate. Offer a house for $300K in a hot market, you might get numerous offers over that amount. You aren't legally bound to sell for your asking price. Otherwise, you couldn't sell for less either...
q]
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: Thraxen
Ummm... apparently you failed to understand my post. I said I though "obo" was intentionally ambiguous. In other words, it gives the seller an out either direction (high or low). So, yes, I read the OP and answered the question asked.
No it doesn't give them an out UP. At least not with sane buyers.
Sure it does, you simply aren't thinking this through. Let's say I place an ad on the internet for an item. Then I get multiple offers. If I respond to some of them and say "Sorry, someone already offered the full price", the buyer might then respond, "OK, how about if I give you X amount more". Yes, essentially an auction, but the ambiguous nature of "obo" gives the seller an out to take a higher offer without outright cheating the first person to offer the asking price.