Sin and business

[Heinrich]

In early November I offered a good of mine to an individual in exchange for a service he provides. Said good would be exchanged at point of service, which has yet to be transpired. However, I have just exchanged said good to another person for what I value as a better service due to increase in market value of my (former) good. I have not told service provider #1 that I no longer have the good he desires. I squarely based my change of mind on the better value and reward. I still intend to purchase services from provider #1 equal to the November value of former good.

Did I sin in not following my commitment to original service provider? 

[Eliza]

If it were me, i'd probably have a guilty conscience about that. If you said you were going to do it and didn't, wouldn't it be considered a lie? You didn't lie in the initial interaction, but it became a lie when you didn't follow through, no? If it's a lie, it's a sin.

This scripture comes to mind:

But let your speech be yea, yea: no, no: and that which is over and above these, is of evil.

[Bonaventure]

In early November I offered a good of mine to an individual in exchange for a service he provides. Said good would be exchanged at point of service, which has yet to be transpired. However, I have just exchanged said good to another person for what I value as a better service due to increase in market value of my (former) good. I have not told service provider #1 that I no longer have the good he desires. I squarely based my change of mind on the better value and reward. I still intend to purchase services from provider #1 equal to the November value of former good.

Did I sin in not following my commitment to original service provider?

I don't think you sinned. We are allowed to find better deals, break off deals (even engagements), and so on.

As long as you are honest, I don't see a sin.

[Eliza]

So the fact that he verbally agreed to it is no matter? That doesn't sound right. Business or no, an agreement is an agreement.

[Greg]

No, market value changes.  Something is worth, what you're prepared to exchange it for.

I sold a car two years ago and the first viewer said he wanted it and went off to get a deposit, he lived about 3 mins away.  He did not show up with the money for 3 hours.  In the meantime another punter turned up who had come from a long way 90 miles and offered me 50 quid more.  I said 100 more and it is yours for 50 i don't want the agro.  He took it and drove off in the car having handed me cash for the entire amount.

The point where you are contractually bound is when the deposit is handed over and a receipt of sale given in exchange.  The first buyer was pissed off, but I told him he should not bring a knife to a gunfight and if he wants to buy cars then he needs to walk around with cash like sensible people do.  At least a 10 percent deposit.

If he had never turned up, as many punters do, I would not have a leg to stand on legally and I would have turned a paying customer away. This is the whole point of a deposit.  It proves intent and means you have something to lose and cover the sellers wasted time if you don't stump up the remainder of the cash.

[Heinrich]

Good insight. Thank you. 

I do plan to speak with a spiritual adviser on this.

[Bonaventure]

So the fact that he verbally agreed to it is no matter? That doesn't sound right. Business or no, an agreement is an agreement.

People break off engagements after a man has got on bended knee and asked a woman to be his wife until death. Men leave seminaries, women leave convents.

Unless solemn vows are broken, we are allowed to change our minds. Not frivolously, and not dishonestly, though.

[Kaesekopf]

I agree.  If the first person wanted it, they wouldn't have waited nearly two months to make the exchange.

[poche]

Not if the original service provider was unduly slow in providing the original service.

[tmw89]

I agree.  If the first person wanted it, they wouldn't have waited nearly two months to make the exchange.

I am of this opinion as well.

[Kaesekopf]

Plus, Heinrich said he'd be purchasing the good/service he wanted to trade for, so really he's just changing the form of payment.  And, if you define the original deal as an agreement or exchange of goods (I would not), US currency is legal tender for all debts. 

So the other guy loses out on the getting a good, but that's his fault for waiting so long.

[tmw89]

Plus, Heinrich said he'd be purchasing the good/service he wanted to trade for, so really he's just changing the form of payment.  And, if you define the original deal as an agreement or exchange of goods (I would not), US currency is legal tender for all debts. 

So the other guy loses out on the getting a good, but that's his fault for waiting so long.

Indeed - but with any luck, he'll learn to be more prompt about such things in the future!

#themoreyouknow

[Heinrich]

In all fairness, the service is dependent on scheduling: both his and mine. Now, upon reflection, I was more flexible in scheduling than he was; we were snowed out this past Saturday, but the deal was made on November 17th(which I have to disclose since I originally said it was early November).

[kayla_veronica]

It would be different if you traded the good after receiving his services, or still intended to receive his services and THEN tell him you sold the good. If this guy is upset about it, he won't have to offer his services to you.