Brenda Lee sang those very lyrics way back in 1961, and because human nature never changes, neither will their significance.

The other day, a good friend of mine was negotiating to purchase a business from a third party that she had never met, and would likely never deal with again once the transaction went down.

It was for the purchase of a restaurant/coffee shop whose key differentiator was it’s unique location. It was located in the kind of place where people could easily get together, but also the kind of place that would likely never be able to do great volumes of food and coffee due to the fact that it was also an outdoor location.

But towards the very end of the negotiations, my friend (who we’ll call Sally) found another, more interesting location with a far greater volume of business, which was located inside of a fairly prominent building that itself could provide significant revenues. When I asked her how negotiations were going with the first site, she couldn’t seem to wait to tell me about this new opportunity.

“It’s got far greater upside potential," she said, “plus, the current owner isn’t really out there, selling to the businesses located within the building. So I know I could build this side of the business up.”

She went on to point out other advantages of the second business and eventually I had to stop her and ask the obvious question --- “Sal, if this new place has so much going for it, why are you even going ahead with your negotiations with the first place?”

Again, she is young. And green. And so her next monologue didn’t surprise me in the least. “Ron, I’ve got so much invested in the negotiations with the first set of owners and they with me. How can I possibly tell them that I’ve now changed my mind and that I am instead planning on buying the second business? They’ll be heartbroken.”

As the words left her lips, all I could think of was a very similar decision that I had made some 30+ years ago --- when I took into account the fact that the owner would be:

1. Heartbroken
2. Angry
3. Vindictive, or
   
4. Sad
   

if I were to just walk away from the negotiations and instead spend my money elsewhere.

“Sally, Sally, SALLY”, I practically yelled, “What IS it that you feel you owe these people? And by the way, were these not the same people who had to be talked into selling their business to you by a mutually acquainted party?

The problem, of course, is that my friend Sally is a victim of what I call the “Nice Guy Syndrome” --- she has in her own mind “lead these folks on” - believing that they have hung religiously on her every word whilst passing by other opportunities to sell their restaurant.

When the fact of the matter is that had they received a better offer, the odds are not in Sally’s favor that she would likely have even received a phone call from them, telling her that the place had already been sold to some higher-bidder. She probably would instead have found out when she called them, to make her latest bid.

Now I know that there are readers of this article who are right now saying to themselves, “Yeah, Ron … she may have been just such a victim, but at least she can sleep at night, knowing that at least one of the two parties to this agreement had some integrity and honor.”

To which I say, “BALONEY!” --- and I say this because nowhere in the “Rules of Engagement” for free-market capitalistic entities does it stipulate that both parties have got to “feel good” during the negotiations. Sure, this is a worthwhile goal, but that is all it is … a GOAL.

Now what’s wrong with this whole scenario is that neither party seems to be communicating very well, and this is something that can and likely will be fixed the next time these two particular sets of buyers and sellers reprise their roles.

For had the owners of Location A really wanted Sally to be their one and only suitor, there are ways that they could have accomplished that goal. For one thing, they could have insisted on some “hand money” (I believe this is the term real estate types use) from Sally the very first minute after they had mutually agreed to the purchase terms and price.

But by not asking for this, they informed Sally that she was and is free to keep on looking for another property. (Of course, she would still have the right if she had laid down money … it’s just that she would now have to forfeit real cash in order to purchase another place.)

Similarly, Sally could have been more communicative with the first seller by telling them immediately of her negotiations with the second shop. I personally believe that she didn’t tell them of her new love simply because she wanted to “eat her cake and have it too” (By the way, that is the correct usage of that old aphorism) … she didn’t really want the first seller to start talking to another suitor (though he would have been perfectly within his rights to do so, given the lack of any binding letters of agreement and/or deposits) until she was dead-certain of what it was that she wanted to do, “nice-guy” feelings be damned.

So … is it really emotions at all? Or, is Sally a shrewd poker player?

Given her age and her reaction to this entire scenario, I’d say it’s more of the former. Much more.

And to that issue, all I can say is, “he who bringeth emotion to the bargaining table is also he who shall loseth out on the deal itself.”

Emotions have very little place in business, and the sooner this is learned, the more successful the entrepreneur will be. I personally don’t think that this is a factory-installed trait, either … I do believe that most emotions can ultimately be managed and controlled.

Or, as old Brenda Lee might say,