Conduct on Audiogon



I am relatively new to Audiogon and have a question about how business is conducted on this site. This morning I made an offer to purchase an interconnect at a certain price and if the seller responded within the day. I received an e-mail from the seller indicating "I'll accept your offer" and notifying me that he would accept paypal or a money order as payment. At this point I have made an offer, he has accepted, and I am thinking we have a deal. 42 minutes later he sends me an e-mail saying he needs me to reconfirm within 10 minutes or he is going to sell to someone else. Of course I am not monitoring e-mail on a minute by minute basis since I have to keep my day job in order to support this expensive habit, and the guy turns around and sells this thing to someone else. In the regular, non-internet, world where I operate this type of conduct would be total b.s. But when I ask this guy how he can agree than simply back out he tells me this happens all the time on Audiogon. Is this really the case? Does this type of conduct merit negative feedback or am I overreacting?
bink

Showing 2 responses by macm

According to your description of the transaction, you tendered an offer, and he accepted. By any reasonable standard, you had an agreement to buy his piece. It sounds like he got a better offer than yours AFTER agreeing to your terms, and, rather than do the honorable thing and uphold his agreement with you, he created an "out" for himself by suddenly requiring you to contact him in a ridiculously short period of time to "confirm." Likewise, if you had backed out after the seller accepted your offer, it would have been just as unethical (although buyers have done that to me before). For the seller to call what he did common practice at this site is weak justification for his actions. It's bad form no matter how you slice it, and Audiogon should permit buyers to document such behavior through feedback.
Angela--I'm not a corporate lawyer, but I have studied contract law. You're right, there was a condition attached to the offer. Bink offered to buy at a given price "IF the seller responded within the day." I'm assuming the seller did in this case. However, if he didn't respond within the day, then Bink's offer was automatically voided. In that case, what we've been calling the seller's "acceptance" would actually have been a counter-offer. Until the counter-offer was accepted by the buyer, there would be no agreement. It's entirely reasonable for the seller to clarify the need for "confirmation" (read: "acceptance") that the buyer still wanted to proceed. However, the seller should have given Bink a more reasonable amount of time in which to reply before going with another buyer, as you and I agree.

Sean--I agree that the line must be drawn somewhere. It would not be appropriate, for example, to allow negative feedback if a buyer wasn't able to cement a deal and just wasn't happy with the way the seller negotiated. But apparently there was a deal in Bink's case, so what we're looking at is a breach of contract on the part of the seller. Offer + acceptance = contract. I think the line deciding what is allowed in the feedback section should be drawn to include willful unethical conduct that arises after an agreement is reached, regardless of whether the transaction is completed. If a member has a history of reneging on his deals, I think you'd agree that's something prospective buyers should have a right to know.