[...]
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The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.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.