If one party has made an offer, the other party has accepted the offer for something and there is valuable consideration being exchange (and there is the absence of a term that the deal is not legally binding) then a contract is formed.
worhiper_-_ offered consideration of .1 BTC in exchange for the following:
- full member account registered in 2012. With 135 activity and 135 posts with overall neutral trust
- an escrow to verify the above, and an escrow to provide an escrow address
The seller accepted his terms, an escrow (myself) agreed to (and did) verify the above information. An escrow (myself) did provide a funding address. If anyone can point out which of worhiper_-_'s terms were not met then I am all ears. However I would argue that a reasonable person would conclude that worhiper_-_ entered into a binding contract with the seller and worhiper_-_ did not follow through on his end.
I consider myself a reasonable person (and according to SB5 IQ, "gifted"), and conclude what
worhiper_-_ sent and meren verified was void for vagueness. IMO a contract should be unenforceable if it is too vague for the average person to understand, let alone the mentally incompetent. Now you've had the learning experience; when you see a counterparty like worhiper_-_ writing a vague blank check like that (to cover idiotic terms), and the counterparty at risk verifying that check...
I think that all of worhiper's terms were met. What may have been vague was the fact that he did not clarify when the account details would be verified, however the details were verified prior to him funding escrow so he received the maximum benefit from that vague term that he could have received.
However I stand by my statement that all terms the OP was requesting were met.
And that was the quasi- or perhaps actual conflict of interest: hunt scammers for free AND try to get paid as an escrow agent trying your damnedest not to get bound up with idiocy/scamming
prima facie indistinguishable from each other. Rather than dropping your clearsign, you could have legitimately said "I'm not the escrow for you" and (void for vagueness aside) their contract definitely wouldn't have been bound, until they found an escrow who agreed to do the second bullet point under the idiotic terms the blank check covered.
Honestly acting as escrow is not worth the tiny amounts of fees/tips I receive. Granted I could have rejected being escrow, and hindsight is 20/20, however the fact remains that worhiper did most likely try to scam in this case as he was trying to put both the escrow and seller at risk.