There is also at least one UDRP decision in which the Complainant successfully argued that rejection of an offer was based on a desire for a higher offer. There are quite a few recurring UDRP issues which have panelist-dependent outcomes, and can turn on how well the situation is explained. Legal argument is often about persuasion. If there were clear right or wrong answers, then there wouldn't be much of an argument on either side.
The "truth" does not always win. It would be nice to be able to tell clients what the outcome of a dispute will be. The only time an outcome is assured is when the parties agree to one. When the dispute is in the hands of a panelist, judge, or jury, then anything at all is possible. What is probable, on the other hand, depends on the credibity of the evidence and the persuasiveness of the arguments.
One of the advantages that folks like Howard, Ari, and I have is that it is usually the case that a UDRP complaint is prepared by an attorney who has never prepared one before, and is not as deeply familiar with relevant prior decisions. We also share information about interesting decisions so that we are prepared when any of several recurring issues is at hand.
On the point of the complainant making an unqualified offer to buy a domain name, as opposed to an assertion of right and an offer to settle, an argument can be made that the offer itself is an admission that the domain registrant indeed was in possession of a right that was subject to a negotiated sale.
The newby complainant faces a dilemma which they often resolve wrongly (from their point of view). On the one hand, they want to obtain evidence that the domain registrant was merely trying to sell the domain name to them. On the other hand, they know that if they raise a legal issue and offer to compromise, then the correspondence is inadmissible as evidence. So, they will often opt for the first approach, which leaves them open to the argument that they have made an admission of right on the part of the domain registrant.
If anyone else here shares my enthusiasm for handicapping horse races, then you understand the difference between making a solid analysis based on the data in the form, and cashing a ticket at the window after the race is over. Two of my picks in the Breeder's Cup races at Arlington were Domedriver and Landseer. The crowd disagreed, and Domedriver paid $54 to win. On the other hand, Landseer tragically broke a leg in a collision coming around the turn into the stretch, did not finish, and was euthanized immediately after the race. It was a good bet, but ended up as far from the cashier's window as one can be.
That's the difference between having a good argument and winning.