Legal question

[yanks12025]

So I got a email yesterday offering some bats. One was listed at $50 so I sent a email right away saying I'll buy it. I called and confirmed I'll buy it for $50 and he said deal and said he'll send a invoice soon. He wrote back to my email confirming a deal. So I sent a email asking about invoice last night but recieved no reply.

Now I found out today he sold it to someone else for $250 even after we agreed on the deal and I confirmed price. My email saying I'll buy it and he writing back saying deal should be a binding contract. Should I fight this?? This stuff is not right. I wouldn't be surprised if another member is the one who bought the bat.

[Jags Fan Dan]

Re: Legal question

Most of us on here have probably had the rug pulled out from under us a few times. My advice would be to let it go. Legally, you may have some ground to stand on. But in my opinion, when you haven't had anything stolen from you, you are not out any money, I walk away. Not happily, but I walk away. From a legal stand point, how much time and money are you willing to throw into the pursuit of a $50-$250 bat?

[Skizzick]

Re: Legal question

You got nothing there. An email isn't a binding contract, and he could always come back and say somebody else sent those emails from his account. The guy is a jerk for doing it, but by no means is what he did legally reprehensible. Win some, lose some.

[yanks12025]

Re: Legal question

You got nothing there. An email isn't a binding contract, and he could always come back and say somebody else sent those emails from his account. The guy is a jerk for doing it, but by no means is what he did legally reprehensible. Win some, lose some.

I'm not sure if that information is totally correct. Reading over arictles online, it says emails can be considered contracts. Plus the guy and I dicussed on the phone and referred to the email.

[Skizzick]

Re: Legal question

I'm not sure if that information is totally correct. Reading over arictles online, it says emails can be considered contracts. Plus the guy and I dicussed on the phone and referred to the email.

It all depends on the language of the email. Unless both of your emails are formatted to represent mutual consent to the sale, I doubt a court would make a judgement either way. Besides, what could you actually sue for? You were going to pay him $50 for a bat that was worth more, and therefore he is obligated to give you back fair market value for a bat that he owns/owned?

[ndevlin]

Re: Legal question

The Bruce Wayne bat? I'd just let it go and move on....

[1929tudor]

Re: Legal question

You want to go through that for a 50.00 item? Your not out any money that he took from you just a deal that didn't happen. Let it go and find another bat. Could have been worse, you could have paid him and he didn't send the bat and then you found out he sold it to the other guy for 250.00 and now he has your money and his. I have lost a few deals where the guy backed out or sold to someone else like that and it isn't worth the headache especially for a low end bat. Just my opinion.

[metsbats]

Re: Legal question

Yanks

Pls email me.

Thanks

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Legal question

FWIW, my understanding is that emails of a very specific format, may be admissible, however, it's highly unlikely that your emails fell into that category.

This is the most straight-forward article that I've seen on the topic:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/253523/how_to_make_sure_that_digital_signature_is_legit.html

[staindsox]

Re: Legal question

I emailed about the same bats right away and he told me he would invoice me as well. Would you expect anything less from Scot Monette?

And I guess he is going my Scot Monet now.

[flota89]

Re: Legal question

Same here. He said I'd get an invoice yesterday. Still waiting.

That makes at least THREE people who were told they were getting the SAME bat. How can this happen?

I know I emailed him within a minute of that email arriving. I felt that I should tell him that he had a Sosa bat so I was up front with him ... But it's not my fault that he didn't know that. A deal is a deal.

-Tyler

[hfd0035]

Re: Legal question

Well we see who caused the price change... Anyone here actually getting the bat at $250 or was that price raised as well? There were 2 Bruce Waynes if I remember correctly

Greg

[flota89]

Re: Legal question

Well we see who caused the price change... Anyone here actually getting the bat at $250 or was that price raised as well? There were 2 Bruce Waynes if I remember correctly

Greg

Scot asked me when I talked to him who I thought the bat belonged to. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to lie (even if it's in my best interest to). I was not told a price of $250, so that isn't me.

I also only was told I was getting one of the bats. Don't know about the other.

[seanbaseball]

Re: Legal question

Well we see who caused the price change... Anyone here actually getting the bat at $250 or was that price raised as well? There were 2 Bruce Waynes if I remember correctly

Greg

Tyler did the RIGHT thing! Is everyone really upset they didn't make $200 profit! They guy should have honored his first deal and that makes him less than honorable, but lets not blame someone that informed him!

[hfd0035]

Re: Legal question

Tyler did the RIGHT thing! Is everyone really upset they didn't make $200 profit! They guy should have honored his first deal and that makes him less than honorable, but lets not blame someone that informed him!

It was more of a joke Seanypoo. You dont have to yell at me with all these exclamation marks. You sound more upset than all of us and Im not a reseller. You know, for the sports guys we are, Im just not used to all this sensitivity.

Im not blaming anyone, just asking who got the bats and what price. I was offered the bat as well.

Tyler, sorry if I offended you with that comment.