Can asking price be changed after offer is made?

Zaikesman, thankyou for your thoughtful and well worded reply. I still think that letting the seller off the hook is tantamount to turning the classifieds into a silent "auction". The inverse to an undervalued asking price is an overpriced asking price. The consequences of that would be either no sale or reaping a larger profit margin. Would we agree with a buyer who skipped out on a deal after agreeing to the price, because he latter discovered that it wasn't worth it? Just as the seller could complain that he may have lost other legitimate sales opportunities, so could the buyer complain that he lost other legitimate buying opportunities. We could turn this thing into a similar debacle that has plagued the restaturant industry, where an individual makes multiple reservations and then askes his companions where they would like to dine at the last minute, giving the impression of being a big shot who can just walk into any popular restataurant. Some restaurants now over book leaving some resaurants with empty tables and others with disgruntled customers waiting at the bar. Many whom have had their after dinner plans ruined (theatre tickets, air line reservations, etc). Even if the person makes multiple reservations and cancels, he has still altered the table and seating arrangements. Now the staff has to do twice what could have been done once for even less money and customers are forced to endure the havoc that ensues. What once was a courtesey is lost and our standard of living with it. Think of the consequences of emdorsing this type of behaviour. In my opinion ignoring it is the same as condoning it. Just as a buyer needs to do his home work before committing to a bid or a purchase, so must the seller. Once it's out there and it's accepted, it's a deal. Timeliness is an arbitrary perspective. I believe Audiogon requests all deals be completed in 10 days. That time period would also include the time involved in checks clearing and actual delivery. As such, at what time is the seller responsible for confirmation for the the sale to proceed? I think that when appropriate following the Audiogon guidelines for auctions should apply to sales as well. One purchase can set into motion a series of sales and/or auctions that involves many Audiogoners. Any hinderence to this mechanism can be construed to be a hinderence to the hobby and objectives of that brought us here in the first place, the opportunity to obtain the best possible sound within our own personal budgets. It's in our own best interest as a community of similar people with similar objectives to to come to agreement as to what is and what is not acceptable to us as a community. Encouraging this type of sales behaviour is a detriment to us all. All socities have rules, customs and laws, I think we can fit this topic into at least one of these categories.

Unsound, nothing that I am saying is meant to condone the behavior of the seller in Cuonghuutran's case. It is obviously an inconvenience to others for a seller post an ad that may cause certain actions to be taken by respondents, only to needlessly disappoint them. I still disagree however, that a seller accepting their best offer - even one above their asking price - carries with it any stink of impropriety. Rather, the seller in the above case violated two of the points I make above: A) The seller didn't thoroughly enough research the item they were selling in order to arrive at the proper asking price, but even more importantly for our purposes, B) The seller failed to be discreet about what they were doing to correct their first mistake. He shouldn't have so transparently tried to weasel out of his first ad by marking it "Sold" and placing a second one at a higher price as if nothing unusual had happened, and he shouldn't have offered the item to Cuonghuutran at a higher price than it was advertised for.

What the seller did NOT do - which keeps him free, to my mind, from accusations of immorality - was to tell Cuonghuutran that they had a deal at the advertised price and then renege on it. Cuonghuutran makes it clear that the seller never accepted his offer, instead telling him that he would "make a decision later", as Cuonghuutran puts it. It is entirely the seller's perogative to consider all the offers he receives if he so chooses, and then pick from among them based on whatever criteria he prefers to employ. Where he went wrong was in telling Cuonghuutran that Cuonghuutran could instead pay him $X.00 amount (above his asking price), and of course in the two ads business, which was just bone-headed. If he wanted to cancel his first ad and re-list the item at a higher price (instead of just accepting his highest offer on the first ad), he should have recontacted all his respondents, apologized to them, and explained that now realized that he priced his item too low, was going to withdraw his first listing (NOT mark it "Sold" like an idiot), and intended to re-list the item at a higher price. Then, any potential buyers who wanted to could make new offers on the new ad, and the seller could choose from among those offers. The point is, the seller should have done one thing or the other (either taken his highest offer quietly, or declared his mistake and re-listed), but not stupidly tried to do both. Had the seller done one of those things, instead of what he actually did do, we would probably not be having this discussion right now.

But leaving aside for a moment the two mistakes the seller made (not doing enough research, not being discreet in dealing with the fallout he created), what the seller essentially did was this: He placed an ad; he got many responses; one or more of his responses offered to pay the asking price; one or more of his responses offered to pay more than his asking price; he accepted his highest offer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this in theory, as long as a seller is both straightfoward and discreet about it. I challenge anybody to state for me a cogent, compelling argument as to why, for instance, if a seller receives 4 equally qualified offers of $400.00 on an item he listed at $400.00, plus one equally qualified offer of $450.00 from a particularly motivated and savvy buyer, the seller should not discreetly give preference to the $450.00 offer. I would. What I WOULDN'T do is recontact the other potential buyers and announce that the going price was now $450.00, and ask if they cared to up the ante - I would just let them know the item was sold.

The example of the restaurant reservations scam is pretty funny; I hadn't heard of this behavior before, but then I'm fairly cloistered and naive. What it is not, however, is an applicable analogy to the issue at hand. In the reservations scam, the con artist knows at the outset that he is wasting the time and effort - and potentially losing business for - a number of the establishments he pretends to offer his business to, because that is part and parcel of his plan to look like a bigshot. In the case of a seller on Audiogon, there is no possible incentive to deliberately list an item at too low a price, and then tell potential customers who respond that they'll actually need to pay more to have a chance. The seller would just be inciting acrimony, and that can't be good for business. Almost any case of pricing an item too low and then deciding to backtrack can automatically be assumed to be the result of an honest mistake. This fact doesn't mean such a careless seller should be held blameless for any inconveniences they may cause, but it does mean that they are not the equivalent of an intentional liar like the reservations weasel. I challenge anybody to present a cogent and compelling argument as to why, for example, if a seller prices an item too low for the market through their own ignorance or carelessness, realizes what he has done after the responses come in - but never tells any of the respondents that they have a deal - it is reasonable to hold that the seller MUST still agree sell the item at the listed price to one of the potential buyers offering the asking-price, even if the seller has other offers for more than the asking-price. Such an argument would defy common sense - an argument harder to defend than it is to defend the occasional careless but not intentionally dishonest seller. Also, it would be prudent to keep in mind that 'the market' is never really known until an item is listed; even the most thoroughly researched and realistically priced item could attract an offer above the asking-price, through no fault whatsoever on the part of the seller. Is it then fair to ask that the seller disregard such an offer?

I stand by my outline for good selling practice above. If Cuonghuutran's seller had followed this etiquette, there would have been no problem. Even given the clearly-less-than-optimal way this particular case was actually handled by the seller, Cuonghuutran was not wronged in any tangible way. Nothing was promised him and later taken back. Any valid offer that anybody makes on any advertised item might prove to be unsuccessful for a variety of legitmate reasons. That's life. In fact, it's better than life: Life is supposed to be unfair. This was not unfair, it was just a failed attempt at happiness. For any one advertised item, there can only be one happily fulfilled customer at most. This time, it wasn't Cuonghuutran; other times, it's not you or me. Let's get over it. The important thing here IMO is that, if sellers follow common-sense guidelines similar to the ones I laid out above, then any one of us could have a seller/customer interaction with any other one of us, and whether or not it resulted in a sale, the customer would never have cause to feel wronged in any way.

I kind of agree with Zaikesman that the best story is a straight story. Unfortunately, the seller did not do that.

Rather than cancelling the ad and giving a straight explanation, the seller chose to: (1) mark one ad as SOLD, (2) increase the price in the other ad, (3) agree to sell to another buyer who offer to pay just the new asking price. The seller also said that he had TWO identical stands and sold one at a lower price, (4) offer to sell to me if I pay at the new price. He did this even after already having a "contract" with the above buyer.

At this point, the seller did not know that the world is small and that the other buyer and I know each other! We did swap war stories.... and figured out how the seller was weaving his stories.

I was annoyed but then amused. Anyway, it was a good lesson for me included.

And about those actions, Cuonghuutran and I certainly can agree that this seller employed all the wrong means (however reactionary and without malice aforethought) to try and justify what otherwise could have been an understandable end. Fortunately, I don't think too many of us A'goners are so clueless or inconsiderate. Thanks for sharing the good lesson for us all.

Zaikesman, perhaps I'm the naive one. My thinking is based on the following premise, unless there are provisions mentioned up front, I believe that a classified add is an offering of a specific piece of merchandise for a specific price. "I'll give you X merchandise for Y money", "I'll give you Y money for X merchandise" Done! Once that price is met you have a contract and the merchandise is promised and no longer available. Any other offers should be held as contingency only. Reselling the same merchandise that was previously sold (or inherently promised as such ) under the previous agreement is dishonest. Sellers and buyers take the same risk regarding actual value. If a seller could benefit from over pricing an item it stands to reason he could also suffer from under pricing an item. If a buyer suffers from purchasing an over priced item it stands to reason that he could benefit from buying an under priced item. Were all big boys and girls, there are no "do overs". All parties should do their home work before offers are made and agreed to. Of course should a mistake be realized before an agreement is made, retraction should be available. Should we allow sellers to accept multiple bids after the original asking price is met (especially in a fixed priced ad), we then allow buyers to make multiple offers on different pieces of merchandise even though they only have the true intention of buying one item, so that they may insure themselves the opportunity to back out of an agreement at the last momement should a better price avail itself or at the very least be in a less precarious situation to actually purchase a piece of merchandise. I'm sure that seller's would be just as upset by that practice, yet it would be fair if you codone the seller doing the inverse. This could have a domino effect that could effect many others who have made agreements based upon original agreements by others. All this can be avoided by honoring ones word. Should one breach this verbal contract there should be repercussions. Just like my restaurant analogy it all comes down to honor. While I have used auctions here on Audiogon before I never really liked them. This thread has forced me to reconsider. If we can't do business in an honorable way perhaps we should abandon the classifieds and stick to the auctions. As it now stands sellers can refuse buyers based on percieved race, religon, creed, etc. Furthermore if buyers resort to the tactics I've outlined to defend themselves it will most likely result in loss of privacy to all parties, as telephone numbers and addreses will probably be needlessly shared. We all know how that can spin out of control. We could add something to the effect that a minimum feedback rating would be required or something to that effect. Sorry, if I've been redundant and beat this thing to death, but I can't help but feel that the loss of honor is erroding our standard of living. If we can all agree to a standard of doing business we will avoid unnecessary complexties and hassles and enjoy better, less stressful lives.