Is this the way YBW members normally behave?

[Spyro]

Do you also listen to offers after having agreed to a price with someone?

Maybe because I'm used to dealing with ebay I don't see it as such a big deal.
As a buyer I put in an offer, if someone offers more I don't get it, my loss. If I really want it and it has a buy it now then that's what I do.
I know this isn't Ebay but if the OP really wanted it he should have offered the asking price. It was a pretty good price considering the RRP of a new one.

 

[muyuu]

Maybe because I'm used to dealing with ebay I don't see it as such a big deal.
As a buyer I put in an offer, if someone offers more I don't get it, my loss. If I really want it and it has a buy it now then that's what I do.
I know this isn't Ebay but if the OP really wanted it he should have offered the asking price. It was a pretty good price considering the RRP of a new one.

This is not what I asked.

Also, price and article have no relevance to the fact of agreeing to a deal.

 

[pheran]

Of course there was a contract, this was a run of the mill private sale.

If you are legally qualified, then I will, of course, bow to your superior knowledge on such matters. But as another poster has drawn attention to above, for a contract to exist, there has to be an offer, an acceptance and, importantly, a consideration. My understanding was that a mere promise to pay does not constitute a consideration. Money actually has to change hands. The parallel, in more familiar retail situations is that the contract to buy/sell your packet of cornflakes is not formed until the lass on the checkout actually takes your money from you. Happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

 

[Lucky Duck]

If you are legally qualified, then I will, of course, bow to your superior knowledge on such matters. But as another poster has drawn attention to above, for a contract to exist, there has to be an offer, an acceptance and, importantly, a consideration. My understanding was that a mere promise to pay does not constitute a consideration. Money actually has to change hands. The parallel, in more familiar retail situations is that the contract to buy/sell your packet of cornflakes is not formed until the lass on the checkout actually takes your money from you. Happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

The retail situation described is known as an 'invitation to treat' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat) where the contract is only finalised at the point of sale. In pretty much all other situations the contract is formed upon unqualfied acceptance of the offer.

 

[Flying Penguin]

If you are legally qualified, then I will, of course, bow to your superior knowledge on such matters. But as another poster has drawn attention to above, for a contract to exist, there has to be an offer, an acceptance and, importantly, a consideration. My understanding was that a mere promise to pay does not constitute a consideration. Money actually has to change hands. The parallel, in more familiar retail situations is that the contract to buy/sell your packet of cornflakes is not formed until the lass on the checkout actually takes your money from you. Happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

Legally qualified, no, but did study law for a number of years before deciding actually another profession (my current profession) was preferable. I admit to being somewhat rusty, but my understanding is as follows:

I think I know which case you are referring to, Stilk v Myrick, but I think you have it back to front. This was a shipping case where a captain offered more money when it became clear that the ship needed sailing short handed due to loss of some crew. The promise to pay extra wasn't enforceable as the consideration was something they were already bound to do under their existing contract of employment.

In general terms, consideration can be executory, i.e. "I promise to pay you £100", there is no general principle that states no contract can exist until money changes hands. The example of the supermarket is an entirely unsuitable comparison as the exact moment of contract formation would depend on how you acted at the till (an example being waiting to be asked for money and giving the person correct change as you pass them the item) and is distinct from any distance selling scenario.

I think this quote from Judge Blackburn in Bolton v Madden (1873) sums it up quite well ‘The general rule is that an executory agreement, by which the plaintiff agrees to do something on the terms that the defendant agrees to do something else, may be enforced if what the plaintiff has agreed to do is either for the benefit of the defendant or to the trouble or prejudice of the plaintiff.’.

Here, OP clearly and unconditionally communicates an offer (in fact uses that exact word) to pay £100, after a day or so, the trader clearly and unconditionally communicates that they accept that offer (offer generally stands until withdrawal of offer is communicated unless a time limit is stated), there is executory consideration on both sides (to send money/item) and intent to create legal relations (this was not a social or charitable offer, it's a commercial sale, you would expect the OP to be able to take legal recourse if item offered was not sent after payment). Therefore all technical requirements are there for contract formation.

Now I'm well aware that this is taking a departure from "real life" and delving into academic legal arguments, but it is applicable to private sales as much as buying stuff in Argos.

Jamie

 

[Ripster]

Crikey all this legal debate - so if he had come back to the buyer and said that he had decided he'd acted in haste and could not let it go for the 100 and would keep it unless he got the 120, would the former agreement still have stood? Or is it the fact he sold it to someone else immediately at 120 instead that makes it unacceptable?

FWIW - personally, for 20 quid I would have gone ahead with my agreement at 100. Reputation and honour in giving your word is worth more than 20 quid IMO.

 

[Flying Penguin]

Crikey all this legal debate - so if he had come back to the buyer and said that he had decided he'd acted in haste and could not let it go for the 100 and would keep it unless he got the 120, would the former agreement still have stood? Or is it the fact he sold it to someone else immediately at 120 instead that makes it unacceptable?

Technically it would have stood, unless the OP was feeling charitable and agreed otherwise.

FWIW - personally, for 20 quid I would have gone ahead with my agreement at 100. Reputation and honour in giving your word is worth more than 20 quid IMO.

+1

 

[pheran]

.

.

I am very much obliged to the Learned Gentlemen for that advice.

 

[Huttoft]

For the princely sum of £20, it's my opinion, the seller forfeited the value of his word, his good name, his honour, reputation etc. etc. Perhaps he's short of a few quid? If so why not let us all know and we might consider a whip round.