Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
Seems easy enough.
Honestly, and I should really ask the OP this, so you think such a gambit would satisfy the OP? After all, for 2 of the 3 individuals mentioned, the OP saw the coins in the auction and had the opportunity to purchase them. Clearly, he didn't like the price or didn't want them back and yet he's mad that he didn't get a private offer. I doubt, without knowing, that a refusal of his offer followed by auction consignment isn't going to make him happy.
@jmlanzaf said:
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I'm not suggesting the seller price the coin, I'm saying the seller should have the buyer price it, and then decide whether or not the price arrived at is acceptable.
@jmlanzaf said:
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I'm not suggesting the seller price the coin, I'm saying the seller should have the buyer price it, and then decide whether or not the price arrived at is acceptable.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
Seems easy enough.
Honestly, and I should really ask the OP this, so you think such a gambit would satisfy the OP?
Don't have a clue. But I think the option I offered (quoted above) would solve that problem. If the OP isn't willing to say how much he would pay when given the opportunity to repurchase the coin, it's certainly not on the seller to hold off on offering it elsewhere.
edited to add... From the OP:
"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."
This doesn't seem to preclude the possibility that the person who bought the coin(s) from the OP would ask the OP how much he was willing to pay to repurchase the coins.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
For those who disagree about the implication of the seller being the one to come up with a price that can be refused, it doesn’t matter - either way there must be an offer from the original seller or a quote/sell price from the owner. Notification of a public sale doesn’t cut it.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After reading this, I have come to the conclusion that If you guys ever sell me a coin and want it to buy back, sorry you are out of luck. Just saying it like it is.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
Seems easy enough.
Honestly, and I should really ask the OP this, so you think such a gambit would satisfy the OP?
Don't have a clue. But I think the option I offered (quoted above) would solve that problem. If the OP isn't willing to say how much he would pay when given the opportunity to repurchase the coin, it's certainly not on the seller to hold off on offering it elsewhere.
edited to add... From the OP:
"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."
This doesn't seem to preclude the possibility that the person who bought the coin(s) from the OP would ask the OP how much he was willing to pay to repurchase the coins.
Personally, I would avoid such informal aspecific agreements. They never end well. I knew 2 dealers who ended a relationship over such and agreement. The one dealer consigned a bunch of junk to another dealer. They never agreed on terms, as they trusted each other. The consignor just told him to "sell it and we'll work out the split later. " The consignee sold it and went to settle up and the consignor felt the other had sold it too cheap. It led to an argument, very heated, and an end to their association.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
@jmlanzaf said:
Personally, I would avoid such informal aspecific agreements. They never end well.
Sure, that makes sense. But...
In this thread, I have been replying based on how events have already transpired based on the OP's post, not on how they might have gone in a more perfect world. A lot of the replies here have been along the lines of someone who wrote "I went to the market today and got into an accident in the parking lot" and the respondents say "Well, you should have gone tomorrow".
@jmlanzaf said:
Personally, I would avoid such informal aspecific agreements. They never end well.
Sure, that makes sense. But...
In this thread, I have been replying based on how events have already transpired based on the OP's post, not on how they might have gone in a more perfect world. A lot of the replies here have been along the lines of someone who wrote "I went to the market today and got into an accident in the parking lot" and the respondents say "Well, you should have gone tomorrow".
My two cents—with limited exceptions, oral contracts are just as enforceable as written contracts. However, because participants’ memories fade, the statute of limitations is usually shorter for oral contracts. Meaning, in many jurisdictions one can enforce an oral contract for 3 years, and a written contract for a few years longer. After that, such a contract is unenforceable.
People put contracts in writing to ensure that there are no misunderstandings, to ensure all necessary elements of a contract are addressed, and to solidify elements of certain specific understandings. If you have any question about this, just look at your PCGS submission form the next time you send coins in.
I suspect a condition in an oral contract like the one described by the op would be unenforceable since it lacks necessary elements of a contract. Rather, it is simply an agreement to agree in the future to something on wholly undefined terms. Agreements to agree to something in the future are generally unenforceable since they lack the necessary elements of a contract-subject matter, time, amount.
Most folks’ indignation appears to be based on their personal ethics or moral code. I tend to agree with most posters and if I made a commitment, I would remember it and seek to abide by it. But I doubt the op ever intended to make a legally enforceable agreement. Rather, he is disappointed in human nature.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
Seems easy enough.
Honestly, and I should really ask the OP this, so you think such a gambit would satisfy the OP?
Don't have a clue. But I think the option I offered (quoted above) would solve that problem. If the OP isn't willing to say how much he would pay when given the opportunity to repurchase the coin, it's certainly not on the seller to hold off on offering it elsewhere.
edited to add... From the OP:
"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."
This doesn't seem to preclude the possibility that the person who bought the coin(s) from the OP would ask the OP how much he was willing to pay to repurchase the coins.
Personally, I would avoid such informal aspecific agreements. They never end well. I knew 2 dealers who ended a relationship over such and agreement. The one dealer consigned a bunch of junk to another dealer. They never agreed on terms, as they trusted each other. The consignor just told him to "sell it and we'll work out the split later. " The consignee sold it and went to settle up and the consignor felt the other had sold it too cheap. It led to an argument, very heated, and an end to their association.
At least two posters to this thread have already indicated that such terms/agreements have ended well, on occasion. And I bet there are even other people in the world who have also had similarly successful transactions.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
And I agree with your last sentence.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
@jmlanzaf said:
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
Comments
Honest question: if the buyer put the coin in a public auction and informed the seller, would that meet the obligation? After all the original seller had the opportunity to reacquire the piece?
How about this...
Get in touch with the guy you bought the coin from and tell him "I'm planning on putting this up for auction at Heritage. Before I do, would you like to make an offer?" If he says yes and makes an offer, you can either accept or decline it. If he says no, you're good to go.
Seems easy enough.
Clearly not, as that wouldn’t equate to offering the seller first right of refusal.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
But he has the right of refusal at the auction. Some items are hard to price. This is "rare plastic". It could have been a "super toner". If the current owner feels the only way to unlock the value is in an auction, why is it not fair to let the market set the price.
The agreement appears to be the right to purchase the coin but there's no price attached. So why isn't the opportunity to purchase it in an open market sufficient? As you pointed out, I could ask a million, have you say no and then put it in the auction and meet the letter, if not the spirit, of the agreement. Why wouldn't bypassing that insincere offer also meet the original terms?
Honestly, and I should really ask the OP this, so you think such a gambit would satisfy the OP? After all, for 2 of the 3 individuals mentioned, the OP saw the coins in the auction and had the opportunity to purchase them. Clearly, he didn't like the price or didn't want them back and yet he's mad that he didn't get a private offer. I doubt, without knowing, that a refusal of his offer followed by auction consignment isn't going to make him happy.
I think you might have misunderstood my comment. I'm not suggesting the seller price the coin, I'm saying the seller should have the buyer price it, and then decide whether or not the price arrived at is acceptable.
No, I understand that. Please see my prior post.
Don't have a clue. But I think the option I offered (quoted above) would solve that problem. If the OP isn't willing to say how much he would pay when given the opportunity to repurchase the coin, it's certainly not on the seller to hold off on offering it elsewhere.
edited to add... From the OP:
"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."
This doesn't seem to preclude the possibility that the person who bought the coin(s) from the OP would ask the OP how much he was willing to pay to repurchase the coins.
Okay- you were posting while I was, too.
Duplicate post deleted...
You omitted the “First” part of “First right of refusal”. Making someone aware of a public auction hardly qualifies. Additionally, I believe
the term implies that if/when the buyer decides to sell, he is to quote a price that the original owner may either accept, counter or “refuse” to buy the coin. And if there’s no transaction, the owner has fulfilled his commitment.
For those who disagree about the implication of the seller being the one to come up with a price that can be refused, it doesn’t matter - either way there must be an offer from the original seller or a quote/sell price from the owner. Notification of a public sale doesn’t cut it.
As I’ve posted a couple of times previously, on a practical basis, “first right of refusal” doesn’t amount to much. That’s due to lack of specifics, as well as multiple potential loopholes, a number of which have been pointed out.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
After reading this, I have come to the conclusion that If you guys ever sell me a coin and want it to buy back, sorry you are out of luck. Just saying it like it is.
My current registry sets:
20th Century Type Set
Virtual DANSCO 7070
Slabbed IHC set - Missing the Anacs Slabbed coins
Personally, I would avoid such informal aspecific agreements. They never end well. I knew 2 dealers who ended a relationship over such and agreement. The one dealer consigned a bunch of junk to another dealer. They never agreed on terms, as they trusted each other. The consignor just told him to "sell it and we'll work out the split later. " The consignee sold it and went to settle up and the consignor felt the other had sold it too cheap. It led to an argument, very heated, and an end to their association.
I agree with 90% of what you've written. However, "give me the opportunity to buy" isn't technically identical to "right off first refusal". And if I really have no idea what a coin might bring at auction, the likely outcome is that one party will be unhappy no matter what happens.
Sure, that makes sense. But...
In this thread, I have been replying based on how events have already transpired based on the OP's post, not on how they might have gone in a more perfect world. A lot of the replies here have been along the lines of someone who wrote "I went to the market today and got into an accident in the parking lot" and the respondents say "Well, you should have gone tomorrow".
At least they didn't reholder the coins.
My two cents—with limited exceptions, oral contracts are just as enforceable as written contracts. However, because participants’ memories fade, the statute of limitations is usually shorter for oral contracts. Meaning, in many jurisdictions one can enforce an oral contract for 3 years, and a written contract for a few years longer. After that, such a contract is unenforceable.
People put contracts in writing to ensure that there are no misunderstandings, to ensure all necessary elements of a contract are addressed, and to solidify elements of certain specific understandings. If you have any question about this, just look at your PCGS submission form the next time you send coins in.
I suspect a condition in an oral contract like the one described by the op would be unenforceable since it lacks necessary elements of a contract. Rather, it is simply an agreement to agree in the future to something on wholly undefined terms. Agreements to agree to something in the future are generally unenforceable since they lack the necessary elements of a contract-subject matter, time, amount.
Most folks’ indignation appears to be based on their personal ethics or moral code. I tend to agree with most posters and if I made a commitment, I would remember it and seek to abide by it. But I doubt the op ever intended to make a legally enforceable agreement. Rather, he is disappointed in human nature.
Tom
Happy Turkey Day !
At least two posters to this thread have already indicated that such terms/agreements have ended well, on occasion. And I bet there are even other people in the world who have also had similarly successful transactions.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And I agree with your last sentence.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
JUST my last sentence?!?!?