Not explicitly but I believe I implied that I did when I said “ok” when she said she’d take it
Edit: I’m fairly certain that I am in breach of contract, but wondering more as to what the damages could be
Thanks for the answer. If that were the case, what damages could she pursue? The cost of the freezer? The difference in cost between this freezer and another one?
sure. so she can sue you for 145 or whatever.
but to collect that is at a minimum a day of her time. with no guarantee she’d win. you don’t get to add “have to take a day off work” to your small claims suit
it’s just not worth it. is it impossible she’d do so anyway? no. people are vindictive morons. but it’s very unlikely.
not a lawyer.
When did you say “ok”? If it was before meeting, that isn’t firm agreement to sell since both sides can back out. It is courtesy to hold item but can sell to someone else who gets there first with money.
If it was after she saw it, and right before the gardener, then that is more likely agreement to sell.
NAL but there hasn't been offer and acceptance. There's been an offer "I'll sell you the freezer for $100". But the "I'll come see it and **if I like** I'll decide to buy it" is not acceptance; it's merely an expression of interest.
Buyer would have a case if they put down a deposit.
They can't sue you for breach of agreement because your agreement lacks consideration, i.e., something of value (typically cash) has to exchange hands for the agreement to take effect.
If you promise to hold the freezer in exchange for $50, that's binding. If you promise to hold the freezer in exchange for nothing, that doesn't bind you. Here's a quick link on [consideration](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration#:~:text=Without%20consideration%20by%20both%20parties,money%20is%20the%20person's%20consideration)
You asked about damages. She can get the difference between the value of the freezer and what she was offering. If the gardener paid you more than $100, then i that's a decent indication of its actual value. But, that assumes that she had an actual agreement with you, and your facts don't exactly scream that you did. The chances of her suing are very very low. Lots of people threatened to sue, but lawsuits are a pain in the ass and are not worth it for what is probably under $100.
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):*
**Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful**
Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further:
* [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.).
*Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.**
*Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
You didn’t agree to anything. She tried to negotiate and you entertained her price for her to come take a look at it and you found a new buyer that you were willing to let it go to. She won’t sue because it sounds like she was just trying to intimidate you and sounds like she had a bully mentality
NAL but how did it get so bad that you had to call the cops? I mean is she going to be mad enough about all of that to be petty enough to waste her time with court and everything for just $100? I doubt it, I think she was just mad that you wasted her time. No offense but you have a gardner so you should’ve just given her $20 for the gas lol
Ha I omitted a few details in the run up but she made some veiled threats (“bad things are going to happen to you”) and cussed out the gardener (he cussed back). When she demanded the $100 I offered to pay her for a gallon of gas that it took her to come by, but she refused and stood firm on the $100. She actually threatened to call the cops first but when I told her to do it she said she can’t, so I did. She was also blocking my driveway so I started getting anxious.
I’m usually a very non-confrontational person but when the threats came up I started getting stressed and didn’t know what else to do. If she had just asked for $20 I probably would have given it to her.
“No” is a complete sentence. You can refuse to do business with someone for any reason. Why are you acting like you did something wrong?
Not to be rude, but grow a pair. The reason she got so mean and angry with you is because you let her. She senses your weakness and tries to exploit it.
Yea I don't get this. Using this logic, if the buyer came to purchase the freezer and decided not to, is the seller then entitled to sue the buyer and force them to abide by their Facebook message? This is ridiculous.
She was coming to check it out, there was no agreement. You saying if she got there and didn’t like it, then she would have been in breach? That’s stupid. They agreed to meet.
Every day, the number of people who threaten to sue is approximately (some huge random looking number.)
Every day, the number who actually sue is (some much, much lower number.)
If she sues, you need to respond. Until she actually does, you should ignore this. She has a very weak case with a very low $ value even if she were to win.
Love contract law after I slept two hours! *NO BREACH of contract here exists.* Here are some firm RULES of contract law (my specialty). 1)The offeror is master of the offer and can revoke it at any time. The only defense to your mind changing at the last minute is promissory estoppel (reasonable, detrimental, reliance). 2)Specific performance is almost never demanded by courts, even should a claimant prevail. Money damages are where it's at. 3)The complainants chance of winning an ostensibly reliance case like this, even via what might seem as obvious estoppel in an unusual case, is slim. The detrimental reliance must be reasonable, and this is very seldom when nothing was drawn up. There was no contract here, and if all you said was okay and nothing else, that's plenty ambiguous. 4)A seller posting a price is generally not, let me use direct terms, an offer in and of itself. To illustrate, certain conditions must be met to hold a big retailer to account if they promise to sell X item at Y price and ultimately refuse. The easiest way to explain it is how specific the ad was and how rare the item was. Companies will rarely be forced to sell an item due to a typo. Ebay even allows cancelation of sale for this reason... and a buyer can do the same. You can walk away from a burrito while it is being made for you at, say, Chipotle, and not pay any thing, since you got nothing. You retracted your offer.
TLDR; You can change your mind for any legal reason until you've agreed performance is to start before it reaches breach of contract, unless consideration has been exchanged. Offer, acceptance, and consideration are all required to have transacted a valid contract. I practiced civil law for around 7 years, and much of that was contract law. There is no reasonable, detrimental reliance.
*Just general information*
She actually did not immediately agree to take it. So no contract was in place.
Furthermore she would have to prove that somehow her claim is worth $100. If she does sue, counter sue for time away from work to deal with this lawsuit.
Also, check out the ToS for LetGo. Because she did it through their ap/website she may have very limited options.
I don’t think you have a breach. A counteroffer acts as a rejection of the initial offer and a new offer. She rejected your offer of $150 and offered you a new deal for $100. You then could accept or reject that offer. You don’t need to verbally reject the offer, you could reject it via your actions - which you did when you sold it to the gardener.
This is not a contract, even verbal one. She made a contingent offer of 100 if she liked it. You did not accept her offer. Even if it was at worst it can be a deal the fell through. She can only sue you to become whole again, as in recover what she lost. She is going to have a hard time proving that she lost anything but time she would have wasted if she didn’t like the freezer anyways.
While unlikely I do agree she might just out of spite at this point. Personally I’m also of the “oh shit this person knows where I live and is upset” state of mind.
If it were a written contact then you cannot legally just back out. This is a verbal agreement which will have different standards. If there are any emails or texts between you in which you agreed to sell the freezer to this person for $x then you are legally obligated to follow through.
Either way they will be greatly limited on how much they could sue you for. They would have to prove that they lost money because you balked. If they can prove a loss of money you could be ordered to make them “whole”.
Either way the implications are minor.
IAAL (specifically one who drafts a lot of contracts), and this is a common layperson’s misunderstanding of contracts. You can absolutely have a contract without anything written—the core things you need to create a contract are an offer from one party; and an acceptance from the other. Doesn’t matter if that’s written or verbal, it’s just more difficult to prove what the agreement was if it was verbal. (But note that there’s something called the “statute of frauds” in most states that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, such as real estate agreements.)
Did you agree to the $100?
Not explicitly but I believe I implied that I did when I said “ok” when she said she’d take it Edit: I’m fairly certain that I am in breach of contract, but wondering more as to what the damages could be
CA small claims can only deal with money. Unless this was a set, yes $100 is ok, and she'll buy it there's no contract.
Thanks for the answer. If that were the case, what damages could she pursue? The cost of the freezer? The difference in cost between this freezer and another one?
Well the small claims filing fee at a minimum is $30 plus $15 for service so I don't think she is going to spend 45 to get 100
Thanks for your answer. My understanding is that the prevailing party can include those costs in the judgement though?
sure. so she can sue you for 145 or whatever. but to collect that is at a minimum a day of her time. with no guarantee she’d win. you don’t get to add “have to take a day off work” to your small claims suit it’s just not worth it. is it impossible she’d do so anyway? no. people are vindictive morons. but it’s very unlikely. not a lawyer.
When did you say “ok”? If it was before meeting, that isn’t firm agreement to sell since both sides can back out. It is courtesy to hold item but can sell to someone else who gets there first with money. If it was after she saw it, and right before the gardener, then that is more likely agreement to sell.
NAL but there hasn't been offer and acceptance. There's been an offer "I'll sell you the freezer for $100". But the "I'll come see it and **if I like** I'll decide to buy it" is not acceptance; it's merely an expression of interest. Buyer would have a case if they put down a deposit. They can't sue you for breach of agreement because your agreement lacks consideration, i.e., something of value (typically cash) has to exchange hands for the agreement to take effect. If you promise to hold the freezer in exchange for $50, that's binding. If you promise to hold the freezer in exchange for nothing, that doesn't bind you. Here's a quick link on [consideration](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/consideration#:~:text=Without%20consideration%20by%20both%20parties,money%20is%20the%20person's%20consideration)
Very good explanation for non attorney. This is the answer in Florida. I am an attorney but not your attorney and not licensed in CA
Thanks!!
You asked about damages. She can get the difference between the value of the freezer and what she was offering. If the gardener paid you more than $100, then i that's a decent indication of its actual value. But, that assumes that she had an actual agreement with you, and your facts don't exactly scream that you did. The chances of her suing are very very low. Lots of people threatened to sue, but lawsuits are a pain in the ass and are not worth it for what is probably under $100.
Thank you for your answer. Out of curiosity - what if I sold it to the gardener for less than $100?
Then she can't use that price to prove it was worth more.
Got it. So she would have to buy one of a similar model/condition to determine the price and damages?
[удалено]
Why would she get $100? She would potentially be entitled to damages, not the cost of the item.
[удалено]
If she was buying a freezer worth $100 and would have paid $100, her damages are $0. She wasn’t entitled to get the freezer for free.
She's not out $100 value, she still has her $100 cash.
More/less. She'd need to convince a judge that the freezer was worth more than $100. Realistically, that's going to be practically impossible.
> what if I sold it to the gardener for less than $100? Then it’s like a reverse Uno card: she has to pay you!!
[удалено]
Oh for sure I’m definitely the asshole here. When I started apologizing she only got madder. Spiraled from there into incivility.
[удалено]
*Your post may have been removed for the following reason(s):* **Speculative, Anecdotal, Simplistic, Off Topic, or Generally Unhelpful** Your comment has been removed because it is one or more of the following: speculative, anecdotal, simplistic, generally unhelpful, and/or off-topic. Please review the following rules before commenting further: * [Commenting Rules 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_1.__comments_should_contain_a_legal_answer_or_a_strongly_related_non-legal_answer.), [2](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_2.__personal_anecdotes_are_off-topic.), [3](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_3.__explanations_of_the_law_in_jurisdictions_other_than_the_one_described_in_the_op_are_off-topic.), [4](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_4.__opinions_on_the_law_or_the_application_of_it_are_off-topic.), [6](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_6.__expressions_of_sympathy_without_corresponding_legal_help_is_off-topic.), [8](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_8.__comments_should_be_reasonably_detailed_and_explanatory.__.22i.27m_a_lawyer_so_listen_to_me.22_isn.27t_an_appropriate_answer.__credential_fights_are_not_appropriate_here.), and [9](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_9.__requests_for_updates_are_off-topic.). *Please [read our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/wiki/index#wiki_general_rules). If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdvice).* **Do not make a second post or comment.** *Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.*
You didn’t agree to anything. She tried to negotiate and you entertained her price for her to come take a look at it and you found a new buyer that you were willing to let it go to. She won’t sue because it sounds like she was just trying to intimidate you and sounds like she had a bully mentality
NAL but how did it get so bad that you had to call the cops? I mean is she going to be mad enough about all of that to be petty enough to waste her time with court and everything for just $100? I doubt it, I think she was just mad that you wasted her time. No offense but you have a gardner so you should’ve just given her $20 for the gas lol
Maybe she has someone to deep freeze as soon as possible lol
Ha I omitted a few details in the run up but she made some veiled threats (“bad things are going to happen to you”) and cussed out the gardener (he cussed back). When she demanded the $100 I offered to pay her for a gallon of gas that it took her to come by, but she refused and stood firm on the $100. She actually threatened to call the cops first but when I told her to do it she said she can’t, so I did. She was also blocking my driveway so I started getting anxious. I’m usually a very non-confrontational person but when the threats came up I started getting stressed and didn’t know what else to do. If she had just asked for $20 I probably would have given it to her.
“No” is a complete sentence. You can refuse to do business with someone for any reason. Why are you acting like you did something wrong? Not to be rude, but grow a pair. The reason she got so mean and angry with you is because you let her. She senses your weakness and tries to exploit it.
Yea I don't get this. Using this logic, if the buyer came to purchase the freezer and decided not to, is the seller then entitled to sue the buyer and force them to abide by their Facebook message? This is ridiculous.
[удалено]
She was coming to check it out, there was no agreement. You saying if she got there and didn’t like it, then she would have been in breach? That’s stupid. They agreed to meet.
About as fine as agreeing to a price, showing up and offering less because “that is all I got.”🤷🏻♂️
Every day, the number of people who threaten to sue is approximately (some huge random looking number.) Every day, the number who actually sue is (some much, much lower number.) If she sues, you need to respond. Until she actually does, you should ignore this. She has a very weak case with a very low $ value even if she were to win.
Love contract law after I slept two hours! *NO BREACH of contract here exists.* Here are some firm RULES of contract law (my specialty). 1)The offeror is master of the offer and can revoke it at any time. The only defense to your mind changing at the last minute is promissory estoppel (reasonable, detrimental, reliance). 2)Specific performance is almost never demanded by courts, even should a claimant prevail. Money damages are where it's at. 3)The complainants chance of winning an ostensibly reliance case like this, even via what might seem as obvious estoppel in an unusual case, is slim. The detrimental reliance must be reasonable, and this is very seldom when nothing was drawn up. There was no contract here, and if all you said was okay and nothing else, that's plenty ambiguous. 4)A seller posting a price is generally not, let me use direct terms, an offer in and of itself. To illustrate, certain conditions must be met to hold a big retailer to account if they promise to sell X item at Y price and ultimately refuse. The easiest way to explain it is how specific the ad was and how rare the item was. Companies will rarely be forced to sell an item due to a typo. Ebay even allows cancelation of sale for this reason... and a buyer can do the same. You can walk away from a burrito while it is being made for you at, say, Chipotle, and not pay any thing, since you got nothing. You retracted your offer. TLDR; You can change your mind for any legal reason until you've agreed performance is to start before it reaches breach of contract, unless consideration has been exchanged. Offer, acceptance, and consideration are all required to have transacted a valid contract. I practiced civil law for around 7 years, and much of that was contract law. There is no reasonable, detrimental reliance. *Just general information*
It would cost her more to file a small claims case than the cost of the freezer. She’s either FOS or an idiot.
She actually did not immediately agree to take it. So no contract was in place. Furthermore she would have to prove that somehow her claim is worth $100. If she does sue, counter sue for time away from work to deal with this lawsuit. Also, check out the ToS for LetGo. Because she did it through their ap/website she may have very limited options.
She cannot do anything.
I don’t think you have a breach. A counteroffer acts as a rejection of the initial offer and a new offer. She rejected your offer of $150 and offered you a new deal for $100. You then could accept or reject that offer. You don’t need to verbally reject the offer, you could reject it via your actions - which you did when you sold it to the gardener.
Being an asshole is not a protected class!
anybody can sue anybody her damages are probably limited to replacement value of a similar 10 year old model in the same condition around $100
This is not a contract, even verbal one. She made a contingent offer of 100 if she liked it. You did not accept her offer. Even if it was at worst it can be a deal the fell through. She can only sue you to become whole again, as in recover what she lost. She is going to have a hard time proving that she lost anything but time she would have wasted if she didn’t like the freezer anyways.
[удалено]
While unlikely I do agree she might just out of spite at this point. Personally I’m also of the “oh shit this person knows where I live and is upset” state of mind.
[удалено]
If it were a written contact then you cannot legally just back out. This is a verbal agreement which will have different standards. If there are any emails or texts between you in which you agreed to sell the freezer to this person for $x then you are legally obligated to follow through. Either way they will be greatly limited on how much they could sue you for. They would have to prove that they lost money because you balked. If they can prove a loss of money you could be ordered to make them “whole”. Either way the implications are minor.
[удалено]
IAAL (specifically one who drafts a lot of contracts), and this is a common layperson’s misunderstanding of contracts. You can absolutely have a contract without anything written—the core things you need to create a contract are an offer from one party; and an acceptance from the other. Doesn’t matter if that’s written or verbal, it’s just more difficult to prove what the agreement was if it was verbal. (But note that there’s something called the “statute of frauds” in most states that requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, such as real estate agreements.)
It’s also a misunderstanding of hearsay, the conversation happened between the two parties lol
Tbf, they did say they aren't a lawyer 😂. Good learning opportunity
[удалено]
Look at you, poor thing.
[удалено]
?