[rvnx]

Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ? If they decided not to proceed to the deal it means it was a bad deal from their perspective or that it would put them in a worse situation. Essentially you are taking advantage of them by forcing them. It's like if you sell a very expensive "brown ice cream", the buyer tells you he wants to buy it, and then when the buyer has it in hands they realize it's not chocolate and you say: "but it's brown ice cream, you are forced to buy it now"

[krisoft]

From the seller’s perspective? Because they own a thing which is worth less to them than the buyer promised for it. Therefore they can profit greatly from the deal.

This is not the story of some happless kid swindled by a brown ice cream vendor. This is a sophisticated business person who has, prior to signing a legally enforceable contract to buy the brown icecream as-is, talked publicly about how the ice cream is just brown and not chocolate.

Why did the buyer made that contract to be written and then signed it? The potential buyer of the brown ice cream was not taken seriously initially. Everyone, including the seller, assumed that he is going to flake out and not go through with the transaction. The buyer has seen that he is not taken seriously, but he really really wanted to own the brown ice cream at that time. So the two parties willingly went into a written agreement that the buyer is going to pay a lot of money for the brown ice cream. Since the seller had concerns about the flakyness of the buyer, they both instructed their lawyers to write the contract as ironclad as possible. And what gives teeth to contracts like that, is that they can be enforced through the court system.

[xmodem]

Well, this probably doesn't come up very often in general, but one reason for Twitter to want to proceed might be if someone had signed a legally binding agreement to pay 15 billion dollars more than the market rate.

[CogitoCogito]

> Why would you force someone to buy something they don't want, whatever the reason is ?

Because they agreed to buy it? And because you stand to make a lot of money. Doesn't seem that complicated to me.

[notahacker]

Yep. It's basically "why wouldn't you accept half your wages if the company really didn't want to pay you the full amount?" or "if you lend somebody something and they decide to keep it, why would you try to get it back?"

[solar-ice]

If he didn’t want to buy it, he shouldn’t have signed a contract saying they are going to buy it with a huge amount of fanfare, several lawyers, and initially against the desire of the company. He knew, well in advance, what he was buying, and he explicitly waived the right to due diligence.

[ryanbrunner]

"It turns out I don't want to do that" isn't something that should be supported in regards to written and signed contracts. Selling a company is a large enough thing that there's downstream effects when the contract is signed and both parties are committed, and there's a real cost to the counterparty saying "on second thought, nah".

[ehnto]

To get their money, presumably. If Twitter stocks fall due to this situation then all the more interest in getting the previously set deal to go through.

[tgsovlerkhgsel]

It being a bad deal for them likely makes it a very good deal for you.

Also, letting them renege on the deal they agreed to would likely put you in a worse situation than had they not offered the (bad, for them) deal in the first place, making it harder to feel bad for them.

Ultimately, if a business made a binding agreement, letting them out of it to be nice is nice, but neither required nor financially sensible.

[avereveard]

The due diligence was done already, and this being a public company adds a layer of regulation on top