That's pretty retarded throughout, but the bolded part is particularly funny. Even WITH a signed contract there's no way to determine that. The latter contract would have to be brought up by the interested party. Which, you know, the interested party is welcome to do at any time, instead of sending in the likes of you and Katz to make these outrageously funny arguments you make.


No, it is not.


Let's try and put this insanity to rest.

I. If A trusts B and B trusts C, these are not nor could they ever be "the same". They are different. They are of the same kind, they may have the same name or belong in the same category, they may be similar. They are not the same. In order for them to be the same in this context they would have to be identical, which is to say the same exact thing. Not two different cherries that are both cherries and thus "the same", but the same exact cherry.

II. The common mistake is a doctrine in common law that allows setting aside contracts that have no basis in fact. If for instance Mircea Popescu and PatrickHarnett both heard about this virtual cryptocurrency called Bitcoin (by reading on Something Awful, let's say) and then entered the original contract, except later it was discovered that there exists no such thing as "Bitcoin", it all being a joke pulled by SA, then indeed the contract would be void, by reason of common mistake.

However, even in this case, the voiding of the contract would not release PatrickHarnett from the obligation to repay all sums he might have received under the presumed contract. So, if indeed Bitcoin did not exist, and Patrick Harnett recieved $5,000 to invest in Bitcoin loans, PatrickHarnett would be held to repay the $5,000. It is true that the contract was void, it is true that this was because of a common mistake, it is not true that one gets to walk with the other's money.

III. The common mistake is always narrowly construed. The case of Bell vs Lever Brothers Ltd. is particularly informative. The relevant quote is


In this case a company hired some people on generous terms. It was later shown those people engaged in fraudulent activities. The company sought to quash the contract, on the grounds that had it known about those activities it would not have entered into the contracts. This was denied by the Lords, on the grounds that the cited mistake wasn't sufficient to nullify or negate the consent of the parties. This is still case law to this day, upheld in Appeals as recently as 2002.

So, if two people contract to convey a certain piece of machinery, which the seller certifies as "free of defects" and then the buyer finds a defect this is not enough to void the contract. The buyer may have access to equitable relief, but since the piece of machinery was actually conveyed the contract is, principally, satisfied (barring specification in the contract to the contrary).

If two people contract to convey a certain piece of art, which both the seller and the buyer mistakenly identify as Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper in spite of the circumstance that the only recognizable shape on the canvas is a truck apparently carrying a couple of oversized cherries, and they later discover that in fact they were mistaken and that piece of art is not Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper this is not enough to void the contract: the certain piece of art was in fact conveyed.

If however two people contract to convey interest in land for the purpose of building a public land pool where the general public may be admitted to swim in earth for a fee, and they later discover that their assumption that one could swim through the earth like they would through water is mistaken, then the contract could be voided for common mistake.

IV. The understanding entered was that the lender will lend, that the borrower will repay with interest, and in a specified contingency (pirate default) the borrower will make good with his own money ("I have more than enough assets to cover that"). There's no room for common mistake here. There is plenty of room for misrepresentation of fact, as in, one party represented they had assets they did not have, represented they were using assets in a manner substantially different from the way assets were actually used and other such fraudulent representations. All this falls squarely under fraud in contracts, and has nothing to do with "mistakes" (which, obviously, is a term of art).

This is all plain obvious, ofcourse, and it is completely unassailable by rational means, of course. Nevertheless, I have not the faintest hope that the forum entertainers (and by this I mean at the very least JoelKatz) might leave their nuttery aside and come to sense - for the very simple reason that once an idiot has made any personal investment whatever into some particular idiocy, that idiot will expend all available effort and all available capital in pursuit no matter how doomed of the illusory hope that his idiocy, his darling idiocy, might be somehow enacted as sensible. This is, after all, how people ended up buying pirate "debt" after the unraveling of that scam.


You've stated this numerous times, it was rebuffed as FALSE numerous times. Again: Patrick's portofolio was never discussed nor considered. Instead of repeating the same FALSE claim numerous times, be so kind as to actually substantiate it.