Oh, telling someone they have said they want to negotiate so you checked the value of the land and they have made a low offer is pulling a fast one? Never heard that description for it before. What Tom did was entirely reasonable, and Justin behaved like a petulant child and threw him out. I know which of them sounded the more adult in that exchange. (Hint: it wasn’t the sulky tantrum-throwing one…)
Except he didn’t check out other valuations, just chose the sort cut of claiming he had following Matt suggesting he could do better. I’d call that (trying to pull) a fast one.
Either way, the real point being that he played hard ball with someone who knew the ground better and he lost. If Helen, or Pat or anyone else, has a view on that then that’s understandable. They should save any bile for Tom though. He’s the one who brought that on.
I’d call it becoming aware that Justin had tried to pull a fast one, myself.
So it is ok for Justin to “negotiate” (which in his case means “be very rude and unpleasant to the other person and then throw them out”) but not for Tom to do so.
Hmph. I’m not sure Tom has a leg to stand on, given that he didn’t even consult the actual owners of the land before plucking possible higher values out of thin air, prompted by Matt. It is deeply satisfying that he got the bum’s rush. And the way he approached it, in full on snarty twunt mode, more than justifies the dusty reception he received.
Can’t be bothered to dislike Justin to the extent you do because he is simply so badly written, like wot Janie and others have said. Can be bothered to dislike Tom/Helen/Pat because they have established form for being revolting and Tony, becauaw he has established form for being trampled by members of his family, with livestock helping out at busy times.
Yes, if we assume that the BFNI told Justin verbally that they were going to accept his offer of 1 million - I am not entirely sure that was said in so many words but it’s what it sounded like to me - then Tom going back to him saying they will sell, but for one and a half million, counts as a rejection of the original offer of one million. (And Justin could be pardoned for thinking Tom was authorised to speak for Bridge Farm. In fact, Pat and Tony clearly had authorised him only he went and did something counter to their wishes about which they ought still to be furious.)
Justin was under no obligation to leave the original offer on the table; that’s the risk you take when you make a counter offer, it nullifies the original offer which may not be repeated.
It seems to me that Pat, Helen and Tony were stupid - why didn’t they get the land valued? - and that Tom was stupid and greedy for believing Matt without checking. I can’t really see that Justin did anything wrong. He sensed that they had gone from reluctance to eagerness to sell, he saw from Tom’s behaviour that he hadn’t a clue how to negotiate and decided it was worth risking losing the sale - he could always find another plot of land - to get it at a lower price. The BFNI had no obligation to sell to him. They could have bided their time and waited for another buyer. Or not sold at all. They hadn’t even thought of it until Justin suggested it.
It makes perfect business sense to me, what Justin did. What doesn’t make sense is that he keeps saying saying he was only trying to do them a favour. If that were true, he’d have repeated the original offer of a million; he seems to want to have it both ways, screw the best price out of the BFNI and have them be his best friends as well.
Matt wouldn’t have been such an idiot. He screwed the best price out of Pat and Tony when they were buying Bridge Farm and saw no reason to apologise for it and didn’t expect them to love him for it.
[quote=“Fanta, post:23, topic:474”]So is ok for Justin to “negotiate” … but not for Tom …?
[/quote]No, but sup with the Devil and all that.
Tom made it a contest … he lost.
Both were entitled to but there are consequences if you lose … & don’t whinge about it.
And lived with Tony’s sister both then and thereafter, without going on and on and on about being “part of the family”.
What Justin did wrong was be a petulant brat. Whinging that they wouldn’t have thought of selling if it hadn’t been for him sucked swamp through a straw.
Deviating from the original topic of this thread, but there was an earlier mention of rotted bovine lactation.
Helen was worried about her cheese, and was also set to make another batch. Wouldn’t it be lovely if it is a disaster and she doesn’t win and the new batch isn’t saleable (why would it be: thought the stuff needed maturing for quite a while, but I think they have forgotten that bit) and that she only lets on too late for Tom to cram the stall with his compost extracts and curdled milk?
Make it so.
I like that, Gus. I definitely like that.
… & what was the refetence thiscevening to Helen being concerned about her cheese.
Has she not been turning it the right way ??
Or at all? She gets Pat to take over the moment she starts looking a bit fragile. Ditto for her brats only she foists them on Tony as well.
If she turns it deasil, it doesn’t become horrible enough.
Do you think that when she foists the turning onto someone else they migjt turn it anti-clockwise whilst she turns it clockwise … thus negating the earlier turns ??
You could be on to something there, Armers.
That’s not likely. Everything Helen does, she screws up.
Maybe they are trying to unscrew the inscrutable?
No, it’s trying to screw the inscrutable that is the inevitably doomed venture. Or so I always understood. And no, I hereby concede that there is no semantic reason why the other course of action cannot be recommended.attempted.
So long as Helen fails, who cares how or why?
That is a very valid point. In fact I’ll drink to that!
It’s not so much maturing as giving people time to forget their previous experience.
Indeed. There’s even a song about it.