undefined | Better HN

0 pointsitisit2y ago0 comments

I'd say the primary concern is not with the purchasing party exercising their right not to disclose their intent post-sale. It's that they're intentionally masking their identity to prevent unwelcome influence on the transaction (i.e. If you know I'm rich, you're going to jack up the price.)

I think the argument is really over whether parties on either side are entitled to privacy/anonymity. The answer seems to be 'yes' in the form of typically legal shell corps, anonymous LLCs, and the like.

0 comments

s1artibartfast2y ago

I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy.

I don't think the idea that benefiting one party's negotiation is such a compelling interest. In the case of Disney, it sounds good because it benefits the perceived Underdog, but It can just as easily cut the other way, especially if you extended to how bad you want something as some people in the thread advocate.

Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsitisit2y ago0 comments

0 comments

s1artibartfast2y ago

I agree that the heart it's about privacy, and what compelling reason we would have as a society that would supersede privacy.

Maybe you want to buy a specific house cuz it's next to the Medical Center where you get treatment. That would probably influence how much you're willing to pay.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse