I have these two walkers I bought raw from a member and he asked that if I ever sold them to let him have first chance. I have since slabbed them and should I ever wish to sell them, he would be the first I would call. It's only been a couple of years ago, but if 10 years it would be the same. Also, I wouldn't make such an agreement with a stranger.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@LindyS said:
I've never grasped the concept of first right of refusal.
Why sell something you might want back ?
Dealer knows it’s a quality, easily salable coin. Say they bought for 5k and sold for 6. Buyer runs into financial trouble shortly thereafter, wouldn’t you, as the dealer, want to buy it for 5k again?
Or in the future they may have to buy for 7 and sell for 8. Either way, it’s a coin that will move which generates revenue. On top of the fact that the dealer may have clients who need quality coins and would love to have it in their collection.
Or the seller may be truly great person who is trying to help someone with their collection and let the coin go for less than true value in order to aid the collector. No one has to make the commitment, so they shouldn't if they plan on buying for an investment. I do not believe that occurs very often, as only two times in my lifetime did it happen to me and I sold the 72 Indian Head Cent back as I promised when I sold the IHC collection.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I have witnessed these kinds of "agreements" many times during my very long career. They were never serious; noone on either side really expected to follow through. Sometimes it's just something to say. Other times the seller just wants to attach a sting to the item because he hates to see it go. Even if the seller would like to have the item back some day, circumstances may have changed so drastically that it cannot be done. Maybe the seller feels he is owed something, but it's only his regret that is speaking.
@MapsOnFire said:
I have witnessed these kinds of "agreements" many times during my very long career. They were never serious; noone on either side really expected to follow through. Sometimes it's just something to say. Other times the seller just wants to attach a sting to the item because he hates to see it go. Even if the seller would like to have the item back some day, circumstances may have changed so drastically that it cannot be done. Maybe the seller feels he is owed something, but it's only his regret that is speaking.
Such an agreement between forum members is far-fetched. Unless I have sat down and had a few drinks with someone and know them on a personal level, I would never expect an agreement like that to hold up over time.
@coiner said:
My opinion is when you sell an item there aren’t any strings attached unless written.
Personally, when I buy a coin there has to be no strings attached. Not that I wouldn’t honor a verbal agreement—but I just don’t want the hassle.
The seller at time of sale should be getting FMV for the item. The only reason to want to have a “right of first refusal” type agreement is they may want to be able to buy something back at sub retail levels. If this want the case, they could easily bid retail on any auction venue where it may be offered.
Your word should be your word, regardless of whether it’s in writing. Some verbal agreements are even legally binding and enforceable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@desslok said:
I don't understand how this verbal agreement was supposed to work in the first place.
If a person wants to consign his coins to auction, how would he give you first refusal over the winning bidder? Or how would he establish a price without the competition of live bidding?
If a person gets an offer at a show, should be pause, say "wait, I need to talk to the guy I purchased this from 20 years ago, if he's still around" and wait 24 hours? 48 hours? a week? for your reply before selling to the person in front of him?
In Jewish tradition there's a term which roughly translates to "a law which the people cannot withstand". To put this in context, I don't think it was a realistic expectation on your part. Even if the buyers all agreed in good faith and had perfect moral standing, as the decades go by and situations change, the contract becomes un-enforceable. The expectation for a lifelong commitment by the buyer is just too heavy a burden.
Just my $0.02
Thank you for making this point more eloquently than I would have.
While it would have been a courteous act of the buyers to reach out to the OP when they decided to sell again; to request that the buyers offer first chance of sale back to the OP seems more like a way to exert soft control on the market of those coins.
I'm not saying someone's word should not mean anything either, but if the other person's word is inherently unreasonable, the terms are being set.
@JRGeyer said:
While it would have been a courteous act of the buyers to reach out to the OP when they decided to sell again; to request that the buyers offer first chance of sale back to the OP seems more like a way to exert soft control on the market of those coins.
So that's when the potential buyer should say the terms are unacceptable and decline to make the purchase.
Or just go back on what he agreed to, I guess.
edited to add... Do I need to rethink the idea of trusting the word of those I'm selling things to?
@JRGeyer said:
While it would have been a courteous act of the buyers to reach out to the OP when they decided to sell again; to request that the buyers offer first chance of sale back to the OP seems more like a way to exert soft control on the market of those coins.
Do I need to rethink the idea of trusting the word of those I'm selling things to?
@JRGeyer said:
While it would have been a courteous act of the buyers to reach out to the OP when they decided to sell again; to request that the buyers offer first chance of sale back to the OP seems more like a way to exert soft control on the market of those coins.
Do I need to rethink the idea of trusting the word of those I'm selling things to?
Do I need to rethink the idea of trusting the word of those I'm selling things to?
To avoid disappointment perhaps you could rethink the idea of requiring your buyers to give their word about anything beyond the actual transaction.
I still don't understand why a basic transaction should come with strings attached. The scenario presented by the OP didn't seem to involve any sort of special consideration (discount) in return for the restriction that was attached to the coins.
@JBK said:
I still don't understand why a basic transaction should come with strings attached.
Because the seller requested it as a condition of the sale? And how restricting was that string? "If you sell, let me have first shot?" OMG! How hard would that be?
And, as the OP said, the buyers all agreed.
I don't understand why the buyers weren't willing to live up to their agreement.
@JBK said:
I still don't understand why a basic transaction should come with strings attached.
Because the seller requested it as a condition of the sale? And how restricting was that string? "If you sell, let me have first shot?" OMG! How hard would that be?
And, as the OP said, the buyers all agreed.
I don't understand why the buyers weren't willing to live up to their agreement.
The scenarios have already been covered in previous posts. When faced with a willing buyer it is not practical to put the buyer off and risk losing the sale so the seller can try to track down the original seller. And, an item being consigned to auction can't really be offered first because the price would not be known until the auction was held.
Yes, buyers should keep their word. No, sellers should not place such restrictions on their buyers.
@JBK said:
When faced with a willing buyer it is not practical to put the buyer off and risk losing the sale so the seller can try to track down the original seller.
In other words, it's easy enough to blow off the agreement you made when it's to your benefit.
@JBK said:
And, an item being consigned to auction can't really be offered first because the price would not be known until the auction was held.
You don't need to know the price it would bring at auction. You offer it to the prior seller at whatever price you think is appropriate.
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
@Pnies20 said:
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
@Pnies20 said:
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
It’s interesting to consider the ethics of such a condition.
It does not seem like there is a simple yes/no answer.
Consider a few scenarios.
1) Family heirloom being sold to raise needed money and the seller wants first shot if their financial conditions improve
2) seller helping out an eager collector with a want list item at a below market price
3) seller reluctantly letting go a favorite item after buyer makes an offer that is hard to refuse
4) seller selling at market price to someone who bought it from a standard buy/sell/trade post
Is it more ethical to ask for first shot to buy back in some of those scenarios than others?
I know what I think, but I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind, especially those who see it as black or white. We have been presented with only one side of the story and possibly incomplete information. Hard to be real definitive, says I.
If I were selling something and stipulated I wanted first shot at a buy back I don’t think I’d sell it to begin with. Unless it was a family member or close friend that I saw often. I know I would
Have reached out if it were me, if I remembered and could find your contact info and it hadn’t been years since we have communicated I’d have no problem giving the original seller a shot. Sometimes life just happens.
I am sorry you didn’t get the opportunity to buy them back.
@hfjacinto said:
While I respect and understand your gentleman’s agreement, unless it was written (and even that might unenforceable). Once you sell an item, it’s no longer yours and what the owner does with it, is really no longer your business.
100%. If it's a friend of yours, I'd maybe feel a bit differently, but absent a personal relationship you can't expect a buyer to sell an item purchased from you to sell it back only to you. We are also getting just one side to this arrangement and can't see exactly what stipulations were made at the time of the purchase. Frankly, I'd find such strings attached to a purchase to be a bit odd after the buyer pays the requested amount for an item and assumes ownership of said item. In any case, I'm curious if the OP would be willing to pay market value for any of these coins considering they were likely sold back then for a sum far lower than the value of the coins today.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
edited to add... I'm really surprised by the "Whatever I can get away with" attitude I'm seeing in this thread.
I have not seen that attitude at all. You are misinterpreting responses. You also have not recognized any scenario where the "agreement" becomes impossible to maintain - you keep suggesting that it would be no big deal to contact the original seller in any scenario.
Furthermore, we have only heard one side of the story. There is no evidence that these restrictions were formal contingencies that were a basis for the original sale, vs a casual request that the buyer acknowledged as a courtesy.
Now who has the graphic of the guy beating the dead horse?
@Pnies20 said:
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
Of course it’s ethical for a seller to include such a condition in his terms of a sale. And potential buyers are perfectly free to pass or make a counter-offer that would exclude that condition.
The condition being imposed isn’t a burdensome or restrictive one. In complying with the agreement, the buyer’s free to quote whatever amount he wishes when he’s ready to sell - literally, any amount.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@hfjacinto said:
While I respect and understand your gentleman’s agreement, unless it was written (and even that might unenforceable). Once you sell an item, it’s no longer yours and what the owner does with it, is really no longer your business.
100%. If it's a friend of yours, I'd maybe feel a bit differently, but absent a personal relationship you can't expect a buyer to sell an item purchased from you to sell it back only to you. We are also getting just one side to this arrangement and can't see exactly what stipulations were made at the time of the purchase. Frankly, I'd find such strings attached to a purchase to be a bit odd after the buyer pays the requested amount for an item and assumes ownership of said item. In any case, I'm curious if the OP would be willing to pay market value for any of these coins considering they were likely sold back then for a sum far lower than the value of the coins today.
The condition of the sale being discussed is right of first refusal, when the original buyer decides to sell at a future date. It is NOT the condition that the buyer sells it back to the original seller. Again, the buyer is free to quote any amount he wishes when complying with the agreement. And that actually makes the condition one with very little practical effect.
As just one example - buyer decides to sell the coin and thinks fair market value is $10,000. But he has a really good collector friend who will happily pay $11,000. So buyer quotes original seller $20,000 and sells it to his friend for $11,000 after his $20,000 price is declined. Yes, original seller will probably be upset but original buyer has still complied - thought granted, not in good faith - with the right of refusal term in the original agreement.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Luxor said:
Going back quite a few years on the PCGS forums I've sold a total of 5 old black holder NGC coins to various forum members (1 coin to one guy, and 2 each to two others) with the condition and gentleman's verbal agreement at the time of sale that should they ever decide to sell the coins anytime down the road that they would let me know and give me first shot to buy them back. In each case the three various forum members all agreed and said that was fair and I took them all at their word, These coins were all sold back when the old black holders still brought a premium but of course nowhere near the absurd money they bring today when rarely offered.
So here's what has happened since and my experience with taking people at their word...... forum member #1 that bought 1 coin didn't last very long and flipped his for a profit without giving me first shot as we agreed, and when I called him on it he apologized. Forum member #2 that bought 2 coins lasted a few years and then I saw both coins in Heritage auctions. I also called him on it and he never responded to me and some time afterwards he stopped posting here. Forum member #3 who also bought 2 coins lasted the longest and I've only just recently also saw 1 of the coins listed at auction, although I have no way of knowing who consigned it and if was the same person here who bought it from me or if it's traded hands since.
I would also mention these are / were all highly regarded long time forum members who I thought would honor their word at the time. So the moral of this story is.......well, you can decide that for yourself. I still have a couple more old black holder coins that I purchased from a local dealer when they traded for no premium, but will not offer them for sale privately anytime soon. Also, I sold the coins on the old forums when my forum name was dragon and then later quit the forums after a private email dispute with the then president of PCGS over a submission and later rejoined with my current name after he left PCGS.
@hfjacinto said:
While I respect and understand your gentleman’s agreement, unless it was written (and even that might unenforceable). Once you sell an item, it’s no longer yours and what the owner does with it, is really no longer your business.
100%. If it's a friend of yours, I'd maybe feel a bit differently, but absent a personal relationship you can't expect a buyer to sell an item purchased from you to sell it back only to you. We are also getting just one side to this arrangement and can't see exactly what stipulations were made at the time of the purchase. Frankly, I'd find such strings attached to a purchase to be a bit odd after the buyer pays the requested amount for an item and assumes ownership of said item. In any case, I'm curious if the OP would be willing to pay market value for any of these coins considering they were likely sold back then for a sum far lower than the value of the coins today.
The condition of the sale being discussed is right of first refusal, when the original buyer decides to sell at a future date. It is NOT the condition that the buyer sells it back to the original seller. Again, the buyer is free to quote any amount he wishes when complying with the agreement. And that actually makes the condition one with very little practical effect.
As just one example - buyer decides to sell the coin and thinks fair market value is $10,000. But he has a really good collector friend who will happily pay $11,000. So buyer quotes original seller $20,000 and sells it to his friend for $11,000 after his $20,000 price is declined. Yes, original seller will probably be upset but original buyer has still complied - thought granted, not in good faith - with the right of refusal term in the original agreement.
This is only one of many scenarios that make this awkward.
While I do think one should keep one's word, it really is a bad contract for both parties.
Scenario you mention.
Current owner only feels like value can be determines by auction.
Current owner has a motivated buyer and has lost contact with the original seller.
Current owner is selling it a part of a bigger deal with no easy way to separate.
I've had several such transactions and it's worked well.
I've also had transactions where the "Please offer it back to me first if you ever sell!" was insincere and only part of the marketing. They had no interest in buying back, down the road.
Have also bought from Party A, promising to offer it back, then sell to Party B, making them promise to offer it back to me, so I can offer it back to party A. This is infrequent, but it has worked so far.
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
If I ever find myself in this situation I think as soon as the original transaction is completed I'll tell the seller that I am thinking of selling and quote a price that is multiples of what I just paid.
They'll obviously turn me down and the curse will be lifted.
@Pnies20 said:
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
Of course it’s ethical for a seller to include such a condition in his terms of a sale. And potential buyers are perfectly free to pass or make a counter-offer that would exclude that condition.
The condition being imposed isn’t a burdensome or restrictive one. In complying with the agreement, the buyer’s free to quote whatever amount he wishes when he’s ready to sell - literally, any amount.
I agree.
Were these the terms of the OP's agreement? He hasn't said whether he would've accepted the new price.
@Pnies20 said:
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
Of course it’s ethical for a seller to include such a condition in his terms of a sale. And potential buyers are perfectly free to pass or make a counter-offer that would exclude that condition.
The condition being imposed isn’t a burdensome or restrictive one. In complying with the agreement, the buyer’s free to quote whatever amount he wishes when he’s ready to sell - literally, any amount.
I agree.
Were these the terms of the OP's agreement? He hasn't said whether he would've accepted the new price.
Yes, I am curious also to learn what the OP is willing to pay, value-wise, if presented with the opportunity to purchase the coin(s) back.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
“Right of first refusal” is tricky. Generally (in my experience) the seller is actually saying “if you’ve decided to sell at a certain price, offer it to me at that SAME price first”. Unfortunately a coin deal is almost never that simple.
You might offer it to a friend at a better price, or to a dealer who has helped you in the past, or to an auction, or any number of things that can alter or obscure the “number” paid.
If you’re instead planning to do what mfeld recommends and offer it back for far more in bad faith just to follow the letter of the deal, you might as well ignore the deal in the first place. They are morally equivalent.
In this particular case, I’d bet hearing the other side of the deal would be enlightening.
@scubafuel said:
“Right of first refusal” is tricky. Generally (in my experience) the seller is actually saying “if you’ve decided to sell at a certain price, offer it to me at that SAME price first”. Unfortunately a coin deal is almost never that simple.
You might offer it to a friend at a better price, or to a dealer who has helped you in the past, or to an auction, or any number of things that can alter or obscure the “number” paid.
If you’re instead planning to do what mfeld recommends and offer it back for far more in bad faith just to follow the letter of the deal, you might as well ignore the deal in the first place. They are morally equivalent.
In this particular case, I’d bet hearing the other side of the deal would be enlightening.
I didn’t and wouldn’t recommend offering the coin back in bad faith. I was presenting an example to illustrate how small the burden is on the buyer of a coin with first right of refusal being a condition of the transaction. And at the same time, showing how the condition is one with very little practical effect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know a lot of contractors who make verbal agreements with customers; some insist on written and signed agreements with customers to avoid misunderstandings, etc.. It depends often on the size of the job, or contract.
With a seller to a customer agreement in this case good payment isn't enough, the seller wants to obligate the buyer to check in with them when they are ready to sell, which could be many years later. If the contact information is the same there should be an attempt to reach them. If someone decides to sell it through GC or HA, how are they going to know potential auction sale price especially with very rare holders? They could estimate likely sale price I suppose and then see whether the original owner would offer that now. If it is likely to sell for 10X or 20x original cost, communication with the original seller I would think would be uncomfortable as if they are trying to take advantage of or shake him down. At auction, especially GC it can be very hard to know how high it could go especially with a cac bean or gold sticker.
I've sold pieces before where I've asked the buyer to get in touch with me if he ever decides to sell. ASKED.
Never anything concrete, where I'd feel the need to vent about it if I saw it for sale elsewhere.
More like a "Hey, would you contact me if you ever decide to sell down the line...I love this piece."
Never in a million years would I sell something and state that I explicitly have FIRST REFUSAL. Regardless of what you believe to be ETHICAL. I really don't think that is enforceable by any law.
You sell something, and it's gone. If it comes back to you, it was meant to be 😆
On a positive note, here is a piece that came back to me from a forum member who graciously contacted me when selling a former piece I should've kept.
Comments
I have these two walkers I bought raw from a member and he asked that if I ever sold them to let him have first chance. I have since slabbed them and should I ever wish to sell them, he would be the first I would call. It's only been a couple of years ago, but if 10 years it would be the same. Also, I wouldn't make such an agreement with a stranger.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Dealer knows it’s a quality, easily salable coin. Say they bought for 5k and sold for 6. Buyer runs into financial trouble shortly thereafter, wouldn’t you, as the dealer, want to buy it for 5k again?
Or in the future they may have to buy for 7 and sell for 8. Either way, it’s a coin that will move which generates revenue. On top of the fact that the dealer may have clients who need quality coins and would love to have it in their collection.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Or the seller may be truly great person who is trying to help someone with their collection and let the coin go for less than true value in order to aid the collector. No one has to make the commitment, so they shouldn't if they plan on buying for an investment. I do not believe that occurs very often, as only two times in my lifetime did it happen to me and I sold the 72 Indian Head Cent back as I promised when I sold the IHC collection.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I have witnessed these kinds of "agreements" many times during my very long career. They were never serious; noone on either side really expected to follow through. Sometimes it's just something to say. Other times the seller just wants to attach a sting to the item because he hates to see it go. Even if the seller would like to have the item back some day, circumstances may have changed so drastically that it cannot be done. Maybe the seller feels he is owed something, but it's only his regret that is speaking.
Well said!
I have handled numerous NGC black label holders. Its one if those things where you dont forget where they came from or where they went.
Your word is your word.
Everyone also needs to be upfront about their current intentions, if buying to flip/ resell, say so.
If its for your collection, there is no reason you couldnt contact someone a few days prior to any other attempts to sell ........
No excuses!
Such an agreement between forum members is far-fetched. Unless I have sat down and had a few drinks with someone and know them on a personal level, I would never expect an agreement like that to hold up over time.
USAF veteran 1984-2005
It would be helpful to know who believes this and who doesn't, when it's inconvenient.
I doubt that many in the second group would self-identify, however.
Your word should be your word, regardless of whether it’s in writing. Some verbal agreements are even legally binding and enforceable.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I tried to click "Agree" and "Like" but apparently, I can only click one. I'd like to click both 1,000 times.
Disappointing to see that there are those who seem to think it's not that big of a deal.
Thank you for making this point more eloquently than I would have.
While it would have been a courteous act of the buyers to reach out to the OP when they decided to sell again; to request that the buyers offer first chance of sale back to the OP seems more like a way to exert soft control on the market of those coins.
I'm not saying someone's word should not mean anything either, but if the other person's word is inherently unreasonable, the terms are being set.
So that's when the potential buyer should say the terms are unacceptable and decline to make the purchase.
Or just go back on what he agreed to, I guess.
edited to add... Do I need to rethink the idea of trusting the word of those I'm selling things to?
Yes
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
It's beginning to look that way.
To avoid disappointment perhaps you could rethink the idea of requiring your buyers to give their word about anything beyond the actual transaction.
I still don't understand why a basic transaction should come with strings attached. The scenario presented by the OP didn't seem to involve any sort of special consideration (discount) in return for the restriction that was attached to the coins.
Because the seller requested it as a condition of the sale? And how restricting was that string? "If you sell, let me have first shot?" OMG! How hard would that be?
And, as the OP said, the buyers all agreed.
I don't understand why the buyers weren't willing to live up to their agreement.
The scenarios have already been covered in previous posts. When faced with a willing buyer it is not practical to put the buyer off and risk losing the sale so the seller can try to track down the original seller. And, an item being consigned to auction can't really be offered first because the price would not be known until the auction was held.
Yes, buyers should keep their word. No, sellers should not place such restrictions on their buyers.
In other words, it's easy enough to blow off the agreement you made when it's to your benefit.
You don't need to know the price it would bring at auction. You offer it to the prior seller at whatever price you think is appropriate.
Agreed.
Sellers can set whatever terms they like. Buyers can agree to buy or not.
edited to add... If you're going to go back on an agreement you made, stop trying to justify why you're doing it and just own it.
My experience has been exactly the opposite.
Tom
We’ve covered that a buyer’s word should be their bond
Devils advocate: I think something that is being asked by some folks In here and isn’t being addressed is the question as to whether it is Ethical in a buyer/seller relationship to require the buyer to give the seller first right of refusal. And if it’s not, should it be dismissed?
Mfeld brought up a legal aspect, and without getting into it, I don’t believe this would be enforced by a court. They would side with the buyer, IMO.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
I don't need a court to tell me whether or not I should be expected to do something I agreed to do.
YMMV
nevermind........
I probably don't have anything useful to add here.
It’s interesting to consider the ethics of such a condition.
It does not seem like there is a simple yes/no answer.
Consider a few scenarios.
1) Family heirloom being sold to raise needed money and the seller wants first shot if their financial conditions improve
2) seller helping out an eager collector with a want list item at a below market price
3) seller reluctantly letting go a favorite item after buyer makes an offer that is hard to refuse
4) seller selling at market price to someone who bought it from a standard buy/sell/trade post
Is it more ethical to ask for first shot to buy back in some of those scenarios than others?
If it’s not ethical and you agreed to it, is it binding in a social contract?
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
I bet you do
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
I bet I don't.
I know what I think, but I doubt I'm going to change anyone's mind, especially those who see it as black or white. We have been presented with only one side of the story and possibly incomplete information. Hard to be real definitive, says I.
If I didn't think it was ethical, I wouldn't agree to it.
I don't see anything unethical about asking for a right of first refusal as a seller or agreeing to it as a buyer.
But someone that doesn’t see it as ethical may agree to it and dismiss it as rubbish and see selling it for a profit as the normal thing to do.
So why is it ethical to place a restriction on a buyer of a product?
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
If I were selling something and stipulated I wanted first shot at a buy back I don’t think I’d sell it to begin with. Unless it was a family member or close friend that I saw often. I know I would
Have reached out if it were me, if I remembered and could find your contact info and it hadn’t been years since we have communicated I’d have no problem giving the original seller a shot. Sometimes life just happens.
I am sorry you didn’t get the opportunity to buy them back.
Martin
Why not? As long as you make your terms clear, what's the problem? The customer can buy or not based on those terms.
Why is it ethical to ignore a restriction you agreed to?
edited to add... I'm really surprised by the "Whatever I can get away with" attitude I'm seeing in this thread.
💃 🕺🏼
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
100%. If it's a friend of yours, I'd maybe feel a bit differently, but absent a personal relationship you can't expect a buyer to sell an item purchased from you to sell it back only to you. We are also getting just one side to this arrangement and can't see exactly what stipulations were made at the time of the purchase. Frankly, I'd find such strings attached to a purchase to be a bit odd after the buyer pays the requested amount for an item and assumes ownership of said item. In any case, I'm curious if the OP would be willing to pay market value for any of these coins considering they were likely sold back then for a sum far lower than the value of the coins today.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I have not seen that attitude at all. You are misinterpreting responses. You also have not recognized any scenario where the "agreement" becomes impossible to maintain - you keep suggesting that it would be no big deal to contact the original seller in any scenario.
Furthermore, we have only heard one side of the story. There is no evidence that these restrictions were formal contingencies that were a basis for the original sale, vs a casual request that the buyer acknowledged as a courtesy.
Now who has the graphic of the guy beating the dead horse?
Of course it’s ethical for a seller to include such a condition in his terms of a sale. And potential buyers are perfectly free to pass or make a counter-offer that would exclude that condition.
The condition being imposed isn’t a burdensome or restrictive one. In complying with the agreement, the buyer’s free to quote whatever amount he wishes when he’s ready to sell - literally, any amount.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The condition of the sale being discussed is right of first refusal, when the original buyer decides to sell at a future date. It is NOT the condition that the buyer sells it back to the original seller. Again, the buyer is free to quote any amount he wishes when complying with the agreement. And that actually makes the condition one with very little practical effect.
As just one example - buyer decides to sell the coin and thinks fair market value is $10,000. But he has a really good collector friend who will happily pay $11,000. So buyer quotes original seller $20,000 and sells it to his friend for $11,000 after his $20,000 price is declined. Yes, original seller will probably be upset but original buyer has still complied - thought granted, not in good faith - with the right of refusal term in the original agreement.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thinking about these transactions
Can somebody post these Dragon for sale ads from years ago ?
https://forums.collectors.com/profile/discussions/dragon
This is only one of many scenarios that make this awkward.
While I do think one should keep one's word, it really is a bad contract for both parties.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
I've had several such transactions and it's worked well.
I've also had transactions where the "Please offer it back to me first if you ever sell!" was insincere and only part of the marketing. They had no interest in buying back, down the road.
Have also bought from Party A, promising to offer it back, then sell to Party B, making them promise to offer it back to me, so I can offer it back to party A. This is infrequent, but it has worked so far.
If I ever find myself in this situation I think as soon as the original transaction is completed I'll tell the seller that I am thinking of selling and quote a price that is multiples of what I just paid.
They'll obviously turn me down and the curse will be lifted.
I agree.
Were these the terms of the OP's agreement? He hasn't said whether he would've accepted the new price.
BHNC #248 … 130 and counting.
Integrity – a character trait that, sadly, not everyone has.
Yes, I am curious also to learn what the OP is willing to pay, value-wise, if presented with the opportunity to purchase the coin(s) back.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
“Right of first refusal” is tricky. Generally (in my experience) the seller is actually saying “if you’ve decided to sell at a certain price, offer it to me at that SAME price first”. Unfortunately a coin deal is almost never that simple.
You might offer it to a friend at a better price, or to a dealer who has helped you in the past, or to an auction, or any number of things that can alter or obscure the “number” paid.
If you’re instead planning to do what mfeld recommends and offer it back for far more in bad faith just to follow the letter of the deal, you might as well ignore the deal in the first place. They are morally equivalent.
In this particular case, I’d bet hearing the other side of the deal would be enlightening.
I have regretted only a few of my sales.
Only one resulted in substantial and potential lost profits.
When you have an awesome coin or sports card you should find a way to keep them.
Especially in this case, where it seems the OP is having sellers remorse.
Learned the hard way... Sell the trash and not the treasure.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I didn’t and wouldn’t recommend offering the coin back in bad faith. I was presenting an example to illustrate how small the burden is on the buyer of a coin with first right of refusal being a condition of the transaction. And at the same time, showing how the condition is one with very little practical effect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know a lot of contractors who make verbal agreements with customers; some insist on written and signed agreements with customers to avoid misunderstandings, etc.. It depends often on the size of the job, or contract.
With a seller to a customer agreement in this case good payment isn't enough, the seller wants to obligate the buyer to check in with them when they are ready to sell, which could be many years later. If the contact information is the same there should be an attempt to reach them. If someone decides to sell it through GC or HA, how are they going to know potential auction sale price especially with very rare holders? They could estimate likely sale price I suppose and then see whether the original owner would offer that now. If it is likely to sell for 10X or 20x original cost, communication with the original seller I would think would be uncomfortable as if they are trying to take advantage of or shake him down. At auction, especially GC it can be very hard to know how high it could go especially with a cac bean or gold sticker.
I've sold pieces before where I've asked the buyer to get in touch with me if he ever decides to sell. ASKED.
Never anything concrete, where I'd feel the need to vent about it if I saw it for sale elsewhere.
More like a "Hey, would you contact me if you ever decide to sell down the line...I love this piece."
Never in a million years would I sell something and state that I explicitly have FIRST REFUSAL. Regardless of what you believe to be ETHICAL. I really don't think that is enforceable by any law.
You sell something, and it's gone. If it comes back to you, it was meant to be 😆
On a positive note, here is a piece that came back to me from a forum member who graciously contacted me when selling a former piece I should've kept.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
There are four sides to this story. We’ve heard one.
Smitten with DBLCs.
I have purchased and later sold coins with this agreement. Dealers and collectors. Never a problem.
Your word is your bond.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set