"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
Bob Mannix wrote:

snip

I had reason to look into the value of a ransom strip some 20 years ago
and the advice then was the owner could hold out for as much as half the
expected profit from the landlocked land.

Eh? The owner could hold out for twice the expected profit if they
wanted - they wouldn't get it but there isn't a limit!

You know what I meant. :-)

It's his land to sell or not for whatever price he wants.

Everyone seems to be under the misapprehension that land (and houses)
have an intrinsic value. As things stand, in this country, it is as close
to a free market as you can get (although not perfect as Dr D will point
out). The value of land is entirely extrinsic and is "whatever someone is
willing to pay"!

Taking your argument to its logical extreme only money has an intrinsic
value. Everything else is worth what someone else is prepared to pay for
it.

Well, money and things where the market is controlled (if one avoids going
too far down the philosophical route!).

In Soviet Russia for example, many things had a known "value" as their price
was controlled (a control economy rather than a free/mixed economy). In
Britain most of the economy is free-ish so yes, only money has an intrinsic
"value" (while the economy is within certain stability limits).

I put "value" in inverted commas because I deplore a society where everyone
knows "the price of everything and the value of nothing". In this discussion
we really mean "price" when we say "value".


With run-of-the-mill houses as with second hand cars there is a general
consensus as to their approximate worth.

No, it entirely depends on where in the country you are, as people are
prepared to pay more or less in different areas so price/value is "whatever
someone will pay"!

With vanity items such as Old Master paintings the value is largely
determined by the amount of surplus cash available for disposal and the
reputation of the object on offer.

is "whatever someone will pay"
In between there may be some items that are a 'must have' to an individual
who will pay through the nose to purchase but are of little or no interest
to the rest of use but as I see it the case in question revolves around
the interests of just 2 parties, the owners of the properties involved.
Neither actually needs the deal but in this case the seller is the one
with the whip hand which is why the deal has more chance of being
concluded if the buyer accepts that the seller deserves a fair share of
the potential profit.

No argument with that


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)