[DENIED] Punish wrongfully breaking off a negotiation

I realize that this isn't worded super specifically, yet I've decided to post this due to the fact that I've seen a lot of scummy practices happen as early as the negotiation-phase and cause damage that can be prevented before any party takes damage and can be regulated by Sythe-rules. I know it's a black-listed thing almost everywhere around the world, however, I didn't expect it to be a thing here. Guess I was wrong. I hope that this thread will lead to a constructive debate.

The starting point is obviously that Sythe is a free market. In principle, everyone is free to break off any negotiation at any given moment due to contract freedom being so important. However, there are some situations where breaking off a negotiation leads to damages or loss of profits which should be held accountable.

The most classic example is: Party A negotiates with party B about an agreement. Party B gives party A the strong impression that the agreement is going to take place and party A prepares the necessary means for it (bonding up accounts etc, placing workers on hold, etc.). Party C approaches party A with a good offer, but not as good as party B's offer, party A declines due to the ongoing negotiation that is expected to lead to an agreement Then party B ghosts party A. The deal with party C has also become a missed opportunity at this point.
Party A has suffered preparation damages, wasted a lot of time negotiating, and missed a (profitable) contracting chance with party C. It is only right that party B should be held liable for some of these posts, especially if party B acting intentionally. So when exactly is party B liable? Grey area. Since the starting point is contracting freedom the bar on this should be pretty high of course. An example of a clear wrongful act would be the situation where party B is purposefully negotiating with party A, just to snatch off a business opportunity party A had with party C. This is a scummy business practice that I've seen happen a lot and that needs to be addressed. Another very annoying practice is a service supposedly having to take place, the providing party, putting the necessary workers on hold for this service, and the buying party promising to pay at a specific timeframe and then just blatantly ghosting the provider without explicitly mentioning that the deal is off the table. This can lead to workers and service providers wasting a lot of time and can be prevented by some assertiveness.

 

No support. If someone wants to change their mind, they are free to.

 

Prior to an agreement being reached, users remain in the "negotiation" space. Once an agreement has been reached, they move into the "deal" space.

If someone reneges on a negotiation that is entirely within their right. If someone reneges on a deal then we will handle those cases as they crop up.

In other words, we already do this... as long as people are in the "deal" space and not the "negotiation" space. Part of negotiating inevitably involves wasted time. It's unreasonable to punish for this.

 

Yeah completely agree. Nobody is arguing against that. But when someone wrongfully keeps you on the line with specific intent that leads to financial harm and to use this situation to make profit, they should be held liable. It's literally parasiting

That's awesome. In my legal system we make this distinction by referring to them as 'negative' and 'positive' negotiation spaces. Therefore, the wording may be confusing.

If wasted time is not punishable, what would you consider to be punishable then?

 

No support, if someone hasn't paid, agreed to your TOS and your worker hasn't started then generally its just a deal that didn't start...

If you don't have enough workers and need to put them on "hold" for a client or potential opportunity you may to need to get a different business model running.

Its one thing if a client pays you and after 24 hours they cancel forcing you to refund the incomplete portion, I've had that happen before and its just apart of it.

Yellow Hat

 

Unfortunately this isnt a communist-run site, this is the free internet. As with real business situations, if you want broken agreements enforced on Sythe, get a TOS and get it agreed to on paper, then Sythe will intervene. No support for such ridiculous blanket rules lol. Sythe mods have always allowed enforcement against agreement breaking in a deal where a TOS is concerned. If you're so worried, get a TOS.

This is akin to politicians lobbying in parliament to make verbal disagreements or walking away from a undocumented business deal illegal lol.

 

Look the point is you are a salemen, you can talk to clients for 10 hours and they dont pay you its apart of it.

Yellow Hat

 

That’s business, man. I wish I could bill my prospects IRL for wasted time when they back out at the last minute/choose someone else. I’d be filthy rich!

No support.

 

This is unbelievably stupid lol. What you're describing is a risk anyone takes when running any business. If you want to hold people liable prior to negotiation, make them put down a deposit-- but I'd be surprised if anyone did business with you. Have you ever called someone a snowflake? Because that would be hilariously ironic.

 

How would you even prove if a user is "changing their mind" to cause damage to someone else's business from those who genuinely may just had a change of heart? You couldn't regulate this even if you wanted to as it just scares people (especially new users) into backing out of a deal.

 

This isn't a stupid suggestion. Wouldn't this fall under "Promissory Estoppel" @Sythe ? If I was negotiating and was told that the "deal is done" and I act upon it and spend funds, then it should be enforceable. Simple as that.

Unless you're talking about trying to enforce a negotiation or something that is not entirely agreed upon yet, then no. That wouldn't make any sense.

So maybe clarification is needed on your suggestion.