Quote from: JoelKatz on November 06, 2012, 10:40:45 PM

Quote from: orcinus on November 06, 2012, 10:34:54 PM

Great. Except none of that applies. Which is why i've made the remark i've made.
THERE IS NO common mistake here.

There was a common mistake that Patrick's loan portfolio did not have significant correlated risk due to Pirate exposure. If not for that mistake, neither side would have entered into the agreement.

Quote

The contract was simple.

A lends X to B
B is obliged to return X+interest to A

That. Is. All.
Everything preceding that has no bearing on that contract. Can you understand that?

Did you read the transcript? The agreement was not as simple as you make it seem, it was specifically a loan to finance a particular lending strategy. Neither side would have entered into the agreement if not for their mistaken common belief. The lender specifically wanted the assurance that the loans were backed by the strength of Patrick's portfolio. The agreement ties one to the other.

Aug 10 08:06:54 hey. your deposits still bs&t free ?
Aug 10 08:07:21 I run a slightly complicated business, but most of the deposit accounts I run are BS&T free
Aug 10 08:07:39 that's what the market wanted
...
Aug 10 08:10:17 in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41 mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T
Aug 10 08:10:56 well that works. i'd like to put 500 bitcoins with you

What do you think "well that works" means here? It's right before the offer.

That appears to be more like someone asking pertinent questions before handing over their money than part of the contract between them. That he lied or misled in his answers knowingly or unknowingly would put him more in the wrong.