Quote from: kjj on September 26, 2012, 04:48:47 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on September 26, 2012, 01:50:46 AM

Quote from: bitcoin.me on September 26, 2012, 01:42:29 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law

There doesn't need to be consideration in this case because there is detrimental reliance sufficient to establish promissory estoppel (see my other post). But there was consideration -- Goat acquired shares on GLBSE, transactions for which GLBSE receives a commission.

You'd need a lawyer with huge balls to argue that this counts as consideration.

Perhaps, but no consideration is required because all the elements for promissory estoppel are present. Nefario communicated a promise intending people to rely on it in clearly foreseeable ways. They relied on his promise to their detriment. This renders the promise the equivalent of a contract.

In any event, whether someone's considered a scammer by the community doesn't hinge on the finer points of contract law. It's more about common sense.

However, I think this particular issue may now be completely academic, as it seems Nefario did offer to cover any direct harm Goat suffered from the breach. He's not entitled to lost profits.