Quote from: bob123 on June 30, 2019, 10:38:20 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 30, 2019, 10:10:08 AM

[...]
Regarding your argument that a contract was not formed, first of all the language in the flag says:

"SeW900 alleges: bob123 violated a casual or implied agreement, resulting in damages, in the specific act referenced here. bob123 did not make the victims of this act roughly whole, AND it is not the case that all of the victims forgave the act. It is not grossly inaccurate to say that the act occurred around June 2019. No previously-created flag covers this same act, unless the flag was created with inaccurate data preventing its acceptance."

So, even if your argument was correct that it was not technically a contract, an agreement was most certainly implied by any metric. However an actual technical contract was formed and documented here by bob123 himself.

Seller: "280$ ok,? !!"
Bob123: "Yes, 280 is good"
Seller: "ok" "do you pay me after PM" "?!"
Bob123: "Yes with escrow"

As you can see the three terms of a technical contract were in fact met.

If THIS is the 'contract' or 'agreement' in your eyes, then you just proved that the flag is inappropriate yourself. Good job on that.

The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.
This did no damage to anyone at all.

So thanks for admitting that the flag is inappropriate.

P.s. Rescinding from a trade isn't even considered breaking it. But whatever, you have already proved that the flag is inappropriate. Thanks for that, the discussion should be over then i guess.

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 30, 2019, 10:31:56 AM

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had.

I can't even try to take you seriously anymore Roll Eyes

Too much trolling for me.

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided. Just because you don't like being held accountable to the same standards you hold others too doesn't make me a troll.

Quote from: xtraelv on June 30, 2019, 10:51:17 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 30, 2019, 10:31:56 AM

Quote from: xtraelv on June 30, 2019, 10:24:46 AM

The conversation as posted by the OP https://i.imgur.com/HGZCFtT.jpg

The quoted part is before the rest of the conversation which clearly shows that there was no acceptance yet of mutually agreed terms.

https://i.imgur.com/rBGZBdB.png

Shows the seller accepts taking the risk.

https://i.imgur.com/0hD2FrX.png

Asking for proof. No acceptance has been made.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows the seller is not convinced there has been acceptance.

https://i.imgur.com/bMy0NvD.png

No proof of ownership - terms not met - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/gSpI4l2.png

Quality not accepted - no acceptance yet.

https://i.imgur.com/jANNM66.png

End of conversation that was posted - where seller asks to "wait". No acceptance yet of mutually accepted terms.

What comes before and after the highlighted agreement is irrelevant. What you say before and after a contract does not invalidate a contract made some time between those two periods because further discussion or terms were had. A contract was technically formed, by your own clearly stated metrics, and by the information bob123 himself provided as I covered above. The instant the seller PMed bob123 a contract was formed because that act was the first act of stipulated consideration after terms were discussed and mutually agreed to.

What comes before is part of the conditions which is relevant.

https://i.imgur.com/wrMj9ge.png

He makes it clear he needs proof and escrow.

https://i.imgur.com/zR1ffz8.png

Also what came after shows the seller making a counter-offer with a variation of the terms - no escrow. If there is an offer and then a counter-offer the counter-offer automatically cancels the initial offer. A counter-offer is considered a rejection of the initial offer.

"But I need a direct deal" is a rejection of the condition of escrow.

https://i.imgur.com/kscOQi4.png
Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/offers-and-rejection-law-essay.php

The whole conversation shows they are still haggling over the terms and which accounts to buy. In order for a contract to exist there has to be agreement on the terms (escrow and proof of ownership) , which products and what price.

https://i.imgur.com/WJV6I2A.png

Shows that the seller is aware that no deal has been struck.

What comes before is irrelevant because they both later agreed on $280. bob123 accepted consideration after the contract was formed. They both also agreed to use escrow. The seller made the consideration to bob123 in good faith (and under contractual agreement) that a certain price would be paid once this consideration (PM from account) was made.

You will also see later in that same conversation about 2/3 of the way down:

bob123 (18:52): "OK send me a message from this account and we have a deal"

He explicitly accepts the terms discussed, and accepts further consideration from the seller in the form of a PM which is then delivered just after as you can see in the conversation. Also once again prices are discussed and agreed upon.

bob123 himself admitted they had a deal, signaling his willingness to contract, and that contract was activated upon consideration (the PM). Just because bob123 backed out of his agreement, and the seller realized he would not complete it at that time does not invalidate the contract bob123 formed. bob123 adding on additional terms after the agreement was formed, and consideration was already made does not invalidate the contract either. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.