Quote:
Originally Posted by mkoesel
I'm not convinced; I do think you come off bitter and jaded. But, I won't argue that point further with you. I simply wish you all the best with the path you've chosen for yourself. And I do mean that.
There need be no loss. All that is germane here is that:
a) There are laws against breech of contract. Why those laws are in place is an exercise you can complete on your own. I suspect that you already know that there is a firm moral basis for many laws, and that this one is included therein.
b) This situation was a breech of contract. A reasonably accomplished level of abstract thought and deductive reasoning will allow (ney - will force) you to see this.
Good work mooseman - you are growing.
|
To the first part, ok, I don't care. If you're good enough to make a deep judgment on a person from 9 posts, gratz. But honestly the only reason I posted was to play the devil's advocate and raise the idea that maybe mob mentality doesn't always produce justice. A lot of assumptions.
As for the second, a contract requires both parties to fully understand what they are agreeing to, hence why most States allow "back out" periods for "buyers remorse" and similar for sellers, contractors. In fact, in most States I'm aware, in contracting there is an allowable time period when/if one spouse agrees to a contract the other can back out.
So, yes, there are moral basis to laws, and they allow distinctions to be drawn when one party or another may be in misunderstanding about what is being offered or purchased.
It is possible the salesman used the "NO RESERVE" as a gimmick to try and boost bids. But we don't know. So why don't we set our "jaded" natures aside that allow us to assume the dealer is trying to "screw" the little man and find out more before we lynch the salesman.
I promise to grow if you will.
