3 ms·

> Sure but contracts which are take-it-or-leave-it and aren't negotiations with concessions on both sides can't really be said to be willing parties. Why not?

> Sure but contracts which are take-it-or-leave-it and aren't negotiations with concessions on both sides can't really be said to be willing parties. Why not? If I list my house for 80% or 90% of the realistic market value with a set of conditions that are “absolutely no negotiations; take it or leave it”, I’m a willing seller and the purchaser is a willing buyer, right?

ggm 2y ago
Thats a contract with no tail consequence. "Buy my house but only if you operate a crack den, and sell drugs to my friends" would not only be un-enforcable, it would be unconscionable. To be less ridiculous, "buy my house but you can't sub-divide it despite local planning laws" would be unfortunate. You appear to be arguing "they consented" -which is nearly always true in a contract between equals, but rarely true when there is an asymmetry of need.
- sokoloff 2y ago
  I’m arguing nothing more than the topic I quoted and responded to. No negotiation/no concession does not inherently mean the parties are not willing participants.
crazygringo 2y ago
Simple, because there are thousands of similar homes that buyers can look at as alternatives. Whereas for things sold by major corporations, there often are not. There's nothing else even remotely similar to a Cybertruck anywhere else. When consumers can shop offerings from hundreds of different competing companies then there isn't really a power imbalance. If you don't like the terms with one, you can probably find terms you do like with another. When there are only 5 manufacturers in the market, or 3, or just 1, that's where the power imbalance happens. Companies get to dictate terms because consumers have no real alternative.
- frumper 2y ago
  An F150 is more than an little similar to a Cybertruck.
Spivak 2y ago
In a weird way, when it comes to home purchases you actually have to negotiate no negotiations. So in real life you can't actually accomplish what you want. And if you want to go further and opt out of the standard home purchase contract entirely you get lawyers involved on both sides so you're again negotiating. The implicit assumption you're making is that offering the house at 80/90% of market value is a concession but that's not how that works. You can't do the negotiation for the other side, say take it or leave it, and say that counts. You can't negotiate against an imagined person in advance If you offer it take it or leave it you're at the whim of the judge saying, "that's absurd no reasonable person would assume that was in a home purchase contract."
- frumper 2y ago
  > Sure but contracts which are take-it-or-leave-it and aren't negotiations with concessions on both sides can't really be said to be willing parties.

ggm 2y ago

Thats a contract with no tail consequence. "Buy my house but only if you operate a crack den, and sell drugs to my friends" would not only be un-enforcable, it would be unconscionable. To be less ridiculous, "buy my house but you can't sub-divide it despite local planning laws" would be unfortunate. You appear to be arguing "they consented" -which is nearly always true in a contract between equals, but rarely true when there is an asymmetry of need.

sokoloff 2y ago
I’m arguing nothing more than the topic I quoted and responded to. No negotiation/no concession does not inherently mean the parties are not willing participants.

crazygringo 2y ago

Simple, because there are thousands of similar homes that buyers can look at as alternatives. Whereas for things sold by major corporations, there often are not. There's nothing else even remotely similar to a Cybertruck anywhere else. When consumers can shop offerings from hundreds of different competing companies then there isn't really a power imbalance. If you don't like the terms with one, you can probably find terms you do like with another. When there are only 5 manufacturers in the market, or 3, or just 1, that's where the power imbalance happens. Companies get to dictate terms because consumers have no real alternative.

frumper 2y ago
An F150 is more than an little similar to a Cybertruck.

Spivak 2y ago

In a weird way, when it comes to home purchases you actually have to negotiate no negotiations. So in real life you can't actually accomplish what you want. And if you want to go further and opt out of the standard home purchase contract entirely you get lawyers involved on both sides so you're again negotiating. The implicit assumption you're making is that offering the house at 80/90% of market value is a concession but that's not how that works. You can't do the negotiation for the other side, say take it or leave it, and say that counts. You can't negotiate against an imagined person in advance If you offer it take it or leave it you're at the whim of the judge saying, "that's absurd no reasonable person would assume that was in a home purchase contract."

frumper 2y ago
> Sure but contracts which are take-it-or-leave-it and aren't negotiations with concessions on both sides can't really be said to be willing parties.