Re: Flagging user broke an agreement and leaking confidential information
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. To argue this doesn't meet the terms of even an implied agreement is asinine and disingenuous on your part.
When a counter-offer is made it kills the initial offer. Even is the person making the counter offer agrees later to the initial terms. This has happened to me in a real estate deal. I made an offer. Then the seller made a counter offer. The counter counter offer was rejected. The seller then offered the same terms as the initial offer I had made which I rejected because I had already decided to buy elsewhere.
Shows the buyer rejected the account based on quality. An account that has plagiarized content is a misrepresentation by the seller.
-- although I do not see any plagiarized content myself. The posting history does make me wonder if it is an account stolen after the last bitcointalk hack where passwords were exposed.
The seller also misrepresented the trust on the account.
Which IF there was a contract would put the seller in breach of contract because he is not showing an account "as described".
It would mean that the message that was sent from that account did not match the description of the account that would have been part of that contract.
The absence of a message from an account that matches the sellers description means that the conditions that the buyer insisted on throughout the conversation (if there was a contract) were not met.
I found an interesting quote:
Since when is asking for proof of possession (picture of the product with username) a "low-life" move??
This same processor is available at NewEgg for $359.99. Fry's Electronics (right down the road) is selling it for $380...
Tell me again why this low-life should spend an extra $40.00, pay for shipping, and likely receive a stolen chip without warranty?
This same processor is available at NewEgg for $359.99. Fry's Electronics (right down the road) is selling it for $380...
Tell me again why this low-life should spend an extra $40.00, pay for shipping, and likely receive a stolen chip without warranty?
Yep. Asking for proof of possession for someone who has ZERO feedback is not too much to ask.
$356 with free shipping on Amazon also.
http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Boxed-I7-6700K-Processor-BX80662I76700K/dp/B012M8LXQW
http://archive.fo/SGJRp
'Breaking' the 'agreement' did not do any damage. Therefore the flag is not valid.
I don't understand why you are trying everything you can to convince others to support this flag.
It simply doesn't make sense to me.
It seems that the majority of voters also thinks that this flag is not appropriate.
Supporting: 1
Opposing: 7
Forfeiting a sale - IF - there is a contract is a technical breach of contract. Even if the seller is still in possession of the goods the "damages" is the extra effort they have to go through to either enforce the sale or resell the item to another buyer.
There was no implied contract of confidentiality as the seller clearly was aware of the risk and stated it was his risk.
I am not convinced that there was a binding contract. I am not satisfied that the conditions that form part of the terms discussed were met by the seller.
It is not really a victory on your part. The flag is permanently there and while it only has the support of one DT but also 4 other members - there are clearly other members that support the flag which I can understand - even though I do not agree with their analysis or conclusion.
