Quote from: cunicula on November 06, 2012, 05:02:57 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 02:21:47 AM

I don't think that the 'we both made a mistake' idea is helpful here. Obviously they both made a mistake.

Joel. I'd be fine with this if it was always transparent who made a mistake. However, courts cannot figure this out in most cases. Thus you make simple, predictable rules that assign responsibility independent of who is at fault. That is what civil law should be about (I think).

In other cases, courts can figure out who made a mistake. Then the court can assign blame. That is what criminal law should be about (I think).

In clear-cut cases you assign blame, in vague cases you default to simple, predicatable rules.

The simple predictable rule here is that the debtor is always responsible for his debt (at least before bankruptcy law)

Just to clarify here, the scammer tag is not given out based on civil law, but on criminal law. Thus, this applies to us:

Quote from: cunicula on November 06, 2012, 05:02:57 AM

In other cases, courts can figure out who made a mistake. Then the court can assign blame. That is what criminal law should be about (I think).

If we had a "default" tag, that would be a whole different situation, though. For sure, that would be based off of civil law.

Quote from: SgtSpike on November 06, 2012, 05:37:36 PM

Joel, your arguments are absurd. If a seller agrees to sell 5000 pounds of cherries, but only delivers 4500 pounds, that is on him. He either needs to make things right by delivering an additional 500 pounds, or renegotiate the contract (i.e., agree with the buyer to only sell 4500 pounds at a lower total price).

Agreed. So, if Patrick doesn't want a scammer tag, he should either pay back as originally agreed or renegotiate in good faith.