Man Buys $50,000 Guitar For $4,000, Then Refuses When Seller Demands It Back

Sometimes a deal sounds so good that it almost feels unreal. When knowledge, timing, and opportunity collide, the line between luck and morality can get blurry fast.

That’s what this Redditor is questioning after purchasing a guitar that turned out to be worth far more than he paid. What started as a straightforward private sale quickly spiraled into accusations, threats, and workplace drama that dragged his wife into the mess.

While he insists the transaction was fair and above board, the seller felt blindsided after learning the true value of what he let go. Now, months later, the situation still sparks debate whenever it comes up.

Scroll down to read how this deal unfolded and why people are deeply divided on whether this was savvy buying or something else entirely.

A guitarist faces backlash after keeping a rare instrument bought cheaply when its true value emerges

Most people expect regret when they make a mistake, but conflict takes root when regret turns into blame directed at someone else. In this situation, the OP didn’t mislead, coerce, or lie.

He entered a voluntary, informed transaction: the seller offered a price, the buyer accepted, and ownership transferred. The emotional conflict began only after the seller realized the market value was much higher than what was agreed.

That shift from acceptance to regret planted the seed for blame, not because of wrongdoing, but because of discomfort with the outcome.

Understanding why this triggers such strong reactions requires a look at the psychology of regret. Regret is a negative emotional state that arises when people believe their outcome could have been better had they made a different choice.

It involves comparing reality to the imagined alternative, especially when the consequences are significant and avoidable.

Knowing this helps explain why the seller’s response escalated so quickly after learning the guitar’s true value; he was reacting to that unpleasant emotion in a way that projected fault onto the OP rather than accepting the outcome.

Importantly, regret does not equal wrongdoing. Feeling bad about a decision you made, even if it cost significant money, is a normal human emotion. Regret itself is common and can be part of mature reflection, but it doesn’t retroactively change the fairness or legality of the original choice.

From a legal standpoint, the situation reflects a basic contract principle: a binding choice was made when both parties mutually assented to an offer and consideration was exchanged.

In most jurisdictions, a contract is formed simply when an offer is accepted and something of value is provided in return, even if the parties later disagree about what the item was truly worth. There is no requirement to disclose potential higher value unless one party fraudulently misrepresented critical facts.

In everyday language, this aligns with the principle of “caveat emptor”, buyer beware, meaning each party assumes responsibility for their own due diligence.

While caveat venditor (seller beware) has gained traction in consumer law for merchants in certain regulated contexts, it does not typically apply to private individual sales of personal property where there was no fraud or coercion.

Let’s dive into the reactions from Reddit:

These commenters argued sellers bear responsibility to know an item’s value

These commenters said both sides sucked, citing ignorance exploited and harassment

These commenters felt the OP knowingly ripped off a grieving coworker

These commenters framed it as an ethics debate, siding with moral duty

These commenters called it legal but scummy opportunism

This wasn’t just a guitar deal, it became a crash course in regret, entitlement, and ethical gray areas. Some see a fair transaction that went sour. Others see a missed opportunity for honesty that cost far more than money.

Was the buyer simply smart, or did he sacrifice integrity for a once-in-a-lifetime score? And where should the line be drawn between personal responsibility and moral obligation? Share your take below.