Quote from: defxor on September 03, 2011, 11:55:39 PM

Quote from: w00ly on September 03, 2011, 11:34:38 PM

The technical implementation is of extreme relevance due to the nature of the transactions. Intent is not relevant. Bitcoin are like contracts. If you sign a contract you cannot back out of it simply by saying "i didnt intend to sign", you have already agreed to it. Dont intend to have things automatically signed for you? Then dont setup buggy software, simple.

Quote

In English law (covering England and Wales), you are entitled to keep money paid to you in error under mistake of fact, but only if you honestly believe that the money is yours. Without any proof of mens rea (guilty mind), mistake of fact can be used as a defence against civil and criminal liability, but only for unintentional mistakes.

But I suggest you keep making stuff up. It makes for fun reading.

Read what you just quoted me, because it's funny that you're defending my argument for me. You are entitled to keep the money if you honestly believe it's yours (regardless of the fact that bitcoin are not british pounds). Being the true owner of the bitcoin because they were signed to him, why wouldnt he honestly believe they were his?

Quote from: Vladimir on September 03, 2011, 11:59:06 PM

The parties never had intent to enter into a contract which would transfer the title to these money. No contract, no title transfer. The exchange has not received an offer and has not accepted it and surely has not received any consideration for it. Moreover, it is clear that party which refused to return the funds has acted in bad faith all the time.

This is a clean cut case from point of view of contract law.

Again, there is no contract for transfer of the title on these bitcoins. Therefore, the title on the money is still with it's rightful owner, the exchange.

I do not know much about criminal law, but basic principles of contract law are more or less the same everywhere.

Yes this can fall under basic contract law because they did enter into a contract by signing them away. Whether or not they intended to is entirely irrelevant, they signed it. How do we know that this exchange did not have a private vendetta against bendavis, sent him these coin, and are now attempting to defame/extort? We dont. The only true information/facts that we have are by looking at the blockchain and seeing that the coins were signed from one address to another, and the receiving party is therefore the rightful owner. Again, as I stated previously, if you do not *intend* for something to be automatically signed away, then dont setup and utilize software to do so