11

Could you tell me if it is correct and natural to say I'll meet you at $100 meaning I'll accept $100 for something? For example:

The phone costs $150, but I'll meet you at $100 if you pay upfront.

If it's not natural, what are other ways to express it?

Improve this question
4
  • "at" is a common preposition for talking about prices: "The best bid is at $80".
    – Nayuki
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 1:18
  • In very modern times we also speak of a "meeting of minds", but where a buy bid is rising and a sell offer is falling in a pattern of convergence, the two amounts can be said to meet. The language of negotiation is rich. "I am sure we can come to an agreement at $100" might be a optimistic statement from either party.
    – mckenzm
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 19:30
  • It sounds like you are striking a bargain when you say that, so really depends on the context. It implies they have explicitly asked if they can pay less, obviously you want them to pay more, so you meet in the middle.
    – Hollis Williams
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 21:07
  • From my humble perspective the phrase "I'll meet you at $100." appears to be a figurative form of speech or even borderline vernacular.
    – MadHatter
    Commented Dec 13, 2021 at 2:29

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
35

If the potential buyer had previously offered to pay less than $100 (e.g. $80), then it's natural to say "I'll meet you at $100". Otherwise, "I'll accept $100" is a better choice.

I think in the context of financial negotiation, "to meet" implies a compromise (usually mutual). Perhaps this diagram will be useful:

$80 -----> $100 <-------- $150
buyer --->  🤝 <------ seller
Improve this answer
7
  • 11
    "I'll meet you half-way" is a pretty common metaphor used for saying that you'll split the difference between an price and an offer (or between an offer or counter-offer), but I'd say that meeting at (a dollar-figure) isn't necessarily as common (albeit I'd understand the intent). The original metaphor uses the idea of physically meeting at a location that is equidistant for both parties. I'd suggest/prefer "I'll settle for $100" over "I'll meet you at $100".
    – jimbobmcgee
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 2:03
  • 4
    @jimbobmcgee i'd argue that "i'll meet you at <exact value>" is perfectly understandable - and indeed, a natural extension of "i'll meet you halfway" since that doesn't specify what price you want to meet at (which means it doesn't help you make a sale). and also, unless you have evidence otherwise, it seems like the phrase is used for any sort of compromise in general - see definitions in the free dictionary.
    – somebody
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 15:47
  • ... so i probably went off on a tangent there, what i really meant to say is that to me, "meeting at <x>" and "settling for <x>" has exactly the same meaning - if anything, depending on the situation i'd avoid using "settle for" since it implies you're on the losing end of a deal. not that that'll change anything but still a bit negative
    – somebody
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 15:50
  • @somebody - Agreed - I'd understand someone using "meet you at..." just fine, which is why I only posted a comment, not another answer. I was just pointing out that it is possibly, technically less "natural" (for some definition of "natural"), unless you used the distance-based metaphor (half-way, part-way, etc.).
    – jimbobmcgee
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 17:21
  • Unicode ASCII art! Oxymoron! :-)
    – Peter - Reinstate Monica
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 23:30
1

Yes, if the two of you are approaching that 100 from above and below, respectively.

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    Welcome to English Language Learners! Could you clarify what the added value of this answer is compared to the accepted one? Otherwise, it's best not to repeat existing answers.
    – Glorfindel ♦
    Commented Dec 12, 2021 at 10:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .