Quote from: chiznitz on August 06, 2017, 08:56:13 PM

Quote from: poordeveloper on August 06, 2017, 02:55:15 PM

I must however say that Bittrex, among many other exchanges, are having problems way too often.

I posted a thread about this here.

Hi,

The only issue we are having is a delayed support time due to an enormous amount of new users over the last few days. I have new support agents starting almost daily to help handle the ticket load.

There are many reasons why an account can be locked without notice. Examples include, but are not limited to, abusive API usage, suspicious activity such as logging in from a different ip range on a dormant account, or knowingly or unknowingly participating in illegal trades, and in rare cases accounts are disabled when we see a suspicious deposit.

We understand the value of privacy and the concern this may cause you. We treat your information with a high level of care and respect.

Unfortunately, when suspicious activity occurs on an account, we have a legal duty to both investigate and know the identity of the user. This is especially the case if your account is a legacy account.

The majority of issues you see that people post are user error or lack of following instructions.

Ryan @ Bittrex

Re: Disallowance of the right of legacy users to withdraw funds

Actually, 'Ryan',

What Bittrex is engaged in here, legally, is known as fraudulent misrepresentation. In the law of contracts, Bitrex, the obligor, made an offer to the consumer, the obligee, by stating specific terms to induce said obligee into assenting; thereby exchanging valuable consideration and forming a binding agreement by the acceptance of said consumer deposit; Consequently, Bitrex has by construction entered into a binding obligation to the initial asseverated terms.

Now, with what may be construed as unreasonable notice, Bitrex has opted to alter the terms of the contract (a modification), which appears, prima facia, to create a 'new' agreement that gives the obligor, Bitrex, an unreasonable advantage (unconscionable) over a weaker party, and therefore gives the consumer full legal rights to accept or decline said new offer (in a unilateral modification, the other party may assent or rescind); in-point of fact, the obligee (consumer) has already performed his end of the initial bargain by the delivery of said consideration by depositing into an account at Bittrex.

Subsequently, only the obligor, Bittrex, is left to fulfill its initial obligation to the original terms, else the initial agreement is now fully avoidable (full rights to void any prior arrangement) by the consumer.

Ergo, by inference, either through fraud, misrepresentation, or otherwise ineptness, Bittrex has unreasonable modified its terms without giving the obligee his legal option to rescind the new offer of contract, and has therefore unjustly enriched itself at its customer detriment.

Legal Definition; Misrepresentation
"An assertion or manifestation by words or conduct that is not in accord with the facts.
Misrepresentation is a tort, or a civil wrong. This means that a misrepresentation can create civil liability if it results in a pecuniary loss.
To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the listener or reader. Also, the speaker must know that the listener is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the listener's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the listener. A misrepresentation need not be intentionally false to create liability. A statement made with conscious ignorance or a reckless disregard for the truth can create liability. Nondisclosure of material or important facts by a fiduciary or an expert, such as a doctor, lawyer, or accountant, can result in liability."

The point being, a unilateral modification in effect creates a new offer, therefore giving the obligee the right to accept or refuse said new offer, with a reasonable opportunity to extricate himself, in full or otherwise, from the antecedent one; wherein, the effect in this case, by deprivation of property (intangibles), may in fact create for Bittrex the additional tort of Larceny by extortion, or deprivation of rights/property; Whereby one party intends to deprive another party of his belongings; which is not only a civil, but a criminal tort.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!

Here is yet an additional legal term to forward to your seemingly incompetent team of Lawyers: Larceny; defined. 1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.

Conclusively, should Bitrex have intentionally misrepresented a material fact to induce a consumer into engaging (depositing funds) in a commercial transaction on the subsequent understanding of rights to said deposits, without full disclosure to potentially subsequent mala fide or otherwise unconscionable term (the present modification), what we have left here may simply be a case of Fraud in the Inducement, which, a priori, creates a Void contract; giving the consumer full rights to rescind and withdraw his funds, immediately.

Subsequently, if the consumer has relied on the initial terms of service to his detriment...wherein Bittrex has now unjustly enriched itself, well, it seems Bitrex may be in a bit of a pickle, wouldn't you agree?

So...'Ryan', what's it gonna be? Allow the people their legal right to rescind and withdraw their money, or open yourselves to a cause of action for potential torts; e.g. compensatory...or possibly punative damages....

Ask yourself in these situations, what would Jesus do?