Quote from: Quickseller on June 23, 2019, 12:46:28 AM

None of what you said has anything to do with the specific fact set that results in the OP being in breach of contract with the seller he was dealing with.

It depends on what was discussed.

Unless I missed something - they way I read it was that the OP just showed interest in buying an account in a "sting operation".

In order for a "breach of contract to occur there has to be offer and acceptance".

If the OP stated that he would buy a specific account once he verified that the seller owned it then there would be acceptance.

Whether anyone on DT would tag someone for breaking a contract for something that is discouraged on this forum is another matter.

A contract requires three essential components.

Offer
Acceptance of identical terms of the offer.
Consideration

But from what I read:

Quote from: bob123 on June 22, 2019, 05:45:17 PM

1)
After requesting proof of ownership of cicizhang and TanClan98 from SeW900, he told me that 'the account' already is banned.
Therefore he proposed me 2 other accounts, which i can buy (zackie and Zedster).

He told me to contact @TrustedAccSeller (via telegram), which i did.

After a long conversation with him and multiple excuses i brought up to not buy an account which he had proven the ownership of (because i wanted to tag as much accounts as possible), i finally got the proof of ownership of multiple accounts and names of a few accounts without proof of ownership.

The fact that they were initially discussing an account that was not even available indicates that there was an "invitation to treat" rather than an offer.

"...an expression of willingness to negotiate. A person making an invitation to treat does not intend to be bound as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom the statement is addressed.

Quote from: bob123 on June 22, 2019, 05:45:17 PM

2)
Rueduciel offered me J Gambler.But he did not send me a proof for ownership because he noticed that this account already is reserved for some other buyer.
Therefore he proposed me the account fitty, which he proved that he indeed has control over this account via a PM.

But now i really wanted to also have his first account (J Gambler) to be flagged too. I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already).
He agreed.

Unfortunately i made a big mistake by leaving him a negative trust rating BEFORE contacting, paired with my sense of humor regarding the chosen username, which interfered my plan. He came to the conclusion that my alt (alice321) is related to me (bob123).

This is possibly a bit closer to a potential contract.

In my view the "buyer" made a "request for information" (invitation to treat) where consideration was discussed rather than an offer.

Quote

I asked him whether i can have this account if i additionally pay 50$ on top (not like 400$ aren't enough already).

I consider this a invitations to treat, requests for information or statements of intention rather than an offer.

Quote

He agreed.

(That the account was for sale for such an amount = Offer

However there is no information that indicates the "buyer" accepted the sellers offer.

For that to occur there would have to have been a statement like "if you accept $ for the account I will buy it" rather than "would you accept $ ?"

I do not agree that there was a contract. Also even if there was a contract I doubt that anyone would tag him for it.

To the OP I would have to ask whether the end result justifies the means.. It is treading into a grey area of ethics. The outcome is tiny for something that is an epidemic on this forum.

I'm not a fan of private sting operations. There are many other initiatives in place that in my view are much better suited at addressing the problem like permabans for plagiarized content by account farmers.

Please note that I find account buyers and sellers untrustworthy. But it is permitted (but discouraged) under the forum rules.