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.
