Fred,
OK...it's raining and work is slow so here comes my thoughts on your post:
The legal profession (of which I am not!) supports many arguments with a
phrase that goes something like this: "What would a reasonable and prudent
person have done...."
The inference is that as a collection of social humans, there are consistent,
acceptable behaviors, motivations (fill in your favorite action word here!)
that frame a picture of what is "reasonable" and the reverse of these
elements which is viewed or perceived as not reasonable. The defender or
defense person attempts to relate this phrase to the life experiences of a
jury or judge or other decision making group to win a case.
I think that most sellers of "expensive parts" or LBCs to some extent (maybe
not knowingly) apply this "reasonable and prudent" logic when they set an
asking price. The true measure of what defines a reasonable price is in the
answer to the fundamental question: "What would a reasonable and prudent
buyer pay for (example: a fully restored 1961 TR3A with only 18,000 original
miles...)? To strike a deal with the seller, this reasonable and prudent
buyer would have to be confident that he/she was typical of nearly all buyers
of '61 TR3A's in his/her demographic area and that the asking price exceeded
similar prices for similar vehicles from the demographic area.
Assuming that the "expensive part" or vehicle is judged by other "reasonably
and prudent" people as such then the amazement from the buyer is probably
because they don't realize the part's/vehicle's value or do and don't have
the cash!. To them, a reasonable price from their life experiences, dictates
a cheaper figure. At that point, the seller needs to decide whether to
convince the buyer of the true value of the goods or let it go and wait for
the ideal (better informed) buyer!
Chip
|