|
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
(no email)
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 21:27:17 EDT
You know sometimes we old retired poots have too much time to think about
these kinds of things.
Its at times like this I wish I knew exactly where to go for an answer. It
would save me a lot of cogitating.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that there is a real possibility
that the newer document would in fact supersede and cancel the older. We
always consider that the case with wills. The newest properly executed piece
of paper constitutes the will. All the others are just so much scratch
paper.
I'm not sure that the law will allow two parties to enter into two identical
contracts for the same identical thing with the stipulation that one party
can decide which contract is to apply. Are you not giving one party an
advantage? Seems to me if I offered to give you $10000 for a thing-a-ma-bob
and you said OK, then later I said I only want to give you $8000, that my
new offer would in essence cancel my old offer.
Now if I come back and say I'm still offering $10000 but I want this and
that fixed, the original offer is still there but with caveats which were
most likely addressed in the first offer. In this case subject to
inspection, sea trial, etc.
My reasoning just tells me that the law will be that when I make a newer
offer, that changes the terms of the first, in this case the price, that the
new offer is considered my current offer and therefore cancels the older
one. Of course once the old one is cancelled, neither party is obligated to
it.
Otherwise I as a buyer would just keep making lower and lower offers,
knowing that I have nothing to lose if the seller can not withdraw.
Kind of negotiating with a safety net.
Seems right to me.
Bill
_______________________________________________
http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering
To Unsubscribe send email to
Include the word Unsubscribe (and nothing else) in the subject or body of the message.
|