I emailed the guy the second I saw it then posted this thread. Well if someone says they will buy it and pick it up tomorrow but the second person says I will be there asap I would go with the second guy.
That's not the moral response. thecody59, you have a little larceny in your heart.
The correct method is to give the first to respond, first right of refusal.
It get's sticky if you are calling people back, and the first guy isn't there when you call. A strict reading would mean you wait until you can contact them before going to #2. But many just go through the list.
So would you call everyone up, and tell each one that if they're the first to get there, it's theirs?
You may as well give an address rather than a phone number, and say first come, first served.
I have had people hold things for me, even though the later callers offered more money and offered to be there faster than I could. Even had one free item, where someone read the address and got there just before me, even though I had talked to the guy and told him I was on the way. He held it for me. I appreciated that.
Now, some ads state that the first who can get there will get it. I had one like that, where I said I could come right away, and the first three callers said they would come the next day. Guess who got the item? Perfectly correct, per the ad.
I've also had a seller regret the price he listed for, but keep his word. A 4" Wilton vise for $35. I was first caller and he immediately got calls offering much more. But he held his ground and gave it to me for the price listed. It's only right.
Bill
. . . . 
