Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
  
Takumar 83mm 1.9
Posted By: Wild Mark, 06-01-2016, 11:15 PM

Wowsers

Extremely Rare F 1 9 83mm Asahi Takumar 42mm Screw Mount Lens FOR Pentax Bodies | eBay

"Tell him he's dreaming son" [said with some typical Aussie twang]


('The Castle' an Australian film exhibiting the quintessential essence of the working man)
Views: 4,698
06-22-2016, 03:39 PM - 1 Like   #61
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,428
This thread has all the makings of previous nutzo post involving RICOH . . . . . Oh - I probably shouldn't go there.

06-22-2016, 05:21 PM   #62
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,604
This thread continues to entertain.

I feel dirty defending this guy, but you are mistaken. The fact that the original listing says he won't accept offers provides Ronald no legal protection, since by saying "I accept," the seller would have agreed to what he reasonably believed to be Ronald's good faith terms, creating a binding contract.

Under the original terms of the listing, "Pentax Collector" was the offeror, and Ronald was free to accept or not. By saying "Would you take $3300?" Ronald becomes the offeror, and Collector, being the offeree is free to accept or decline until his offer is reasonably considered to be rescinded. The original "no offers" term becomes irrelevant, since in the eyes of the law, it is a new, independently existing negotiation. Without any acceptance of the initial offer in the first place, Collector is not bound to its terms, since there is no consideration on Ronald's part attached and thus no contractual obligation that stems from the initial offer.

It's just like if your friend offered to sell you his car for $5000 and at the time said "I won't accept a penny less," but if you came back a month later and said "I see you haven't sold your car yet. I'll offer you $3000." If he accepts (setting aside the UCC de minimis documentary requirements for a sale of goods over $1k, which are arguably satisfied in Ronalds case), it's a legally binding contract for $3k, regardless of the "not a penny less" language in his original offer. Now if you agreed to the initial $5k, agreed to the sale, paid the first half, and came back a month later and said "sorry, I'm only willing to pay you $3k total now, take that total or give me my money back, since I don't agree to pay $5k" then the initial terms would control, and your friend could sue you for the $5k total, since there was an agreement with consideration on both sides to the original terms.

You are right in what you said up above, though. Collector doesn't know the difference between criminal law and civil law. His complaint for breach of contract is a civil one, and his remedy here would be to sue for specific performance or damages. If he sent the lens in good faith and then Ronald refused to pay or reversed charges, then it would be a criminal act (fraudulent conversion or similar depending on the jurisdiction).

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Excellent point.
As the legal genius himself said:
He has stated that he will not accept offers; ergo, no acceptance, no contract. No contract, no obligation.
06-22-2016, 07:02 PM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,457
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
This thread has all the makings of previous nutzo post involving RICOH . . . . . Oh - I probably shouldn't go there.
Ohhhhh Myyy.....Did I Do That ?


Last edited by Dlanor Sekao; 06-22-2016 at 07:12 PM.
06-22-2016, 07:30 PM   #64
Pentaxian
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,065
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
"Would you take $3300?"
We're straying from the OP and intent, but this is interesting in the context of eBay lens transactions.

Does the wording make any difference? Is "would you take $3300" actually an offer, since the statement doesn't identify a second party (the offeror) and seems hypothetical? I could see how "I offer you $3300 now. Will you accept?" is an offer. Is the first instance an implied offer?

- Craig

06-23-2016, 06:19 AM   #65
A Proud PENTAXER !!!
fwcetus's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,211
I've been enjoying this thread for a bit. However, my question is, if I break a tooth on an unexpected popcorn kernel, will I be able to sue the lens seller ?


06-23-2016, 06:25 AM - 1 Like   #66
Loyal Site Supporter
TomTom's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by fwcetus Quote
I've been enjoying this thread for a bit. However, my question is, if I break a tooth on an unexpected popcorn kernel, will I be able to sue the lens seller ?


Ab-so-lutely! In Federal criminal court.
06-23-2016, 06:27 AM   #67
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Newcastle
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,550
Original Poster
I reckon this is a classic case for Judge Judy - I would LOVE to see her adjudicate on this one
06-23-2016, 06:39 AM   #68
Pentaxian
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,065
I'm hoping that the seller's mention of "the Pentax Forum" directs a few new folks to our site. Maybe we'll pick up new members. Nice irony.


Still, I have to admire the seller's sales record and positive eBay feedback. Prospective buyers probably ignore the snarl and focus on the items on offer. That's what I do with one of the regular sellers at a local flea market, although he's more grumpy than snarly.

06-28-2016, 09:33 PM   #69
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,457
ROFLOL......My Name even made it into his Ad ! The price is now $2999.......
Never Been to Federal Court before.........I can hardly wait .........
Does this mean I finally get to See Washington DC ?

---------- Post added 06-29-16 at 12:53 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by TomTom Quote
It makes me wonder if it was the actual Stinky Seller or a forum member trolling us. Either way, mildly entertaining.
I think its a combination of both actually.........I may need to drag my Friend Donald Trump into the mix !

Last edited by Dlanor Sekao; 06-28-2016 at 09:47 PM.
06-29-2016, 05:54 AM   #70
Loyal Site Supporter
TomTom's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by Dlanor Sekao Quote
ROFLOL......My Name even made it into his Ad ! The price is now $2999.......
Never Been to Federal Court before.........I can hardly wait .........
Does this mean I finally get to See Washington DC ?

---------- Post added 06-29-16 at 12:53 PM ----------

I think its a combination of both actually.........I may need to drag my Friend Donald Trump into the mix !
Please let's not drag Cheeto Jesus into this discussion.
06-29-2016, 06:49 AM   #71
Pentaxian
dcshooter's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Washington DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,604
19 watchers. I wonder how many of them are in this thread.

And oh, now he wants 4 grand for it. Seems to be taking the Kevin Cmaera approach: if you ask an outrageous enough price, someone will think that the lens must be special enough to be worth it.
06-29-2016, 07:00 AM   #72
Loyal Site Supporter
TomTom's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
19 watchers. I wonder how many of them are in this thread.

And oh, now he wants 4 grand for it. Seems to be taking the Kevin Cmaera approach: if you ask an outrageous enough price, someone will think that the lens must be special enough to be worth it.
Can sellers see the IDs of watchers?
06-29-2016, 07:24 AM   #73
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,339
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTom Quote
Can sellers see the IDs of watchers?
Nope, you are safe!

Phil.
06-29-2016, 08:09 AM   #74
Loyal Site Supporter
TomTom's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Nope, you are safe!

Phil.
Good to know. Bad enough that I'm a peasant who would actually use that lens if I had the inclination to buy one without also being called a voyeur,
06-29-2016, 09:19 AM   #75
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: westerly
Posts: 794
QuoteOriginally posted by dcshooter Quote
19 watchers. I wonder how many of them are in this thread.

At least one.

QuoteQuote:
And oh, now he wants 4 grand for it....

It'd be interesting to see a timeline of the price fluctuations. Is that information available from eb*y?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
asahi, buyer, contract, coupon, dick, doctrine, item, lens, money, offer, pentax deals, photos, post, price, product, savings, seller, ship, takumar, takumar 83mm, usps
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I found the elusive AOCO 83mm 1.9 Takumar today. Cypress6767 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 10-25-2014 04:22 PM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar 1:1.9 F=83mm lense bobrapp Sold Items 3 12-04-2012 01:55 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top