4 ms·

So if I go to a car dealership and ask how much a car is, and the dealer says $30K. I say I would pay $28K. The dealer says "sure! sold!". By this logic I would

• vmception 4y ago
  legal logic doesn't apply to different variables, so I'm not sure why you did that. the one with more similarities would be that you would have asked the dealer to sell at $28k, the dealer says $30k and you say okay. secondly the courts accept verbal contracts unless there is a statutory carveout for a specific kind of agreement, the courts require proof to rule which verbal contracts happen to lack. so if you did it over email, or did it through a broker's portal that says using it is a binding contract, then a court would have the proof, which is the logic of the actual case here.
  • eweise 4y ago
    Even in your scenario over email you agreed to sell to the dealer for $30K, I still don't think it would be a binding contract.
  • Swenrekcah 4y ago
    I think that both reversing the power status and changing the relative amounts is doing the analogy some harm. In my opinion a more relevant analogy is: Car dealership approaches person and asks to buy their car for $2500. Person says “Naah, price is $50,000 bro”. Dealership says: “Sure”. Here I believe it’s more clear that the person is in fact not obligated to part with their car unless they take the required additional step of agreeing to the purchase and finalising all documents.
• NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  No, because, under the Uniform Commercial Code, the contract for sale of goods, by a merchant, with a value over $500 has to be in writing. But that also doesn't tell you anything about this case, because the category of "goods" does not include "general intangibles" into which category the courts have placed domain names, and because the seller in this case would not be considered a merchant in the sense of the UCC.
• tedunangst 4y ago
  No, you go to your neighbor and give them a note that says $500 for the corvette, they write back no way, it's $50k, you write back "done!". They are now obligated to sell you the car for $50k, even if it's hot rod red and they really like driving it on the weekend.
  • bastardoperator 4y ago
    Prove I wrote "done"... case dismissed.
    • tedunangst 4y ago
      I look forward to the Carl Sagan fan winning this trial on that basis.
  • erosenbe0 4y ago
    Sure, agreed, but let's say the buyer doesn't accept on the spot in mere seconds. So no agreement is made on how long the counter is good for. Buyer goes home to check his finances. He comes back an hour later and says, "done deal!" The seller seems firmly within their rights to say, "Sorry, my counteroffer was good only for 15 minutes." This might sound silly but market conditions change in minutes and events happen like earthquakes or 9/11. In the absence of an agreed term of expiration I see no reason why a counter is good for any longer than the seller feels like it. Though with written or implied terms it would be totally different (see real estate contract offers for examples). Am I missing something?
  • eweise 4y ago
    Still not definitely an offer since its not clear whether "no way, its $50K" is a committed offer, plus the terms should be more definite.
• mr_toad 4y ago
  > So if I go to a car dealership and ask how much a car is, and the dealer says $30K. I say I would pay $28K. The dealer says "sure! sold!". By this logic I would be required to buy the car. Yes. What’s your point?
  • eweise 4y ago
    My point is I don't think it would be a valid contract but I think you could have inferred that.