Quote from: bob123 on June 30, 2019, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on June 30, 2019, 11:26:08 AM

You don't get to rescind an agreement AFTER considerations (the PM) have been provided.

Well.. i can just repeat myself.. you seemed to have overlooked that (or maybe just didn't reply on purpose):

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The fact that i rescinded from it (which is 'breaking the agreement' in your eyes), did not result in any damage.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

'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

I am not overlooking anything. You agreed to terms. You then agreed to pay a specific amount after he provided consideration by PMing you from the last account. It is at this time a contract was formed. Just because you refused to fulfill your agreement does not make the agreement invalid. It came into effect the moment he sent you the PM, also known technically as consideration, which you then used to cause damages. Sorry I don't care how many people oppose this flag, it is valid. You entered into a contract under fraud which directly resulted in damages via the loss of account value. If you had not explicitly made the agreement it might have been different, but you did in fact create a contract with intent to defraud and then violated it AFTER receiving considerations.

Quote from: xtraelv on June 30, 2019, 11:41:01 AM

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.

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

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.

https://i.imgur.com/rxM4KAD.png

https://i.imgur.com/SxocdF3.png

https://i.imgur.com/t1xBqVJ.png

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:

Quote from: Ntrain2k on April 12, 2016, 03:50:49 PM

Quote from: Puffy23 on April 12, 2016, 03:05:35 PM

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?

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

Quote from: bob123 on June 30, 2019, 11:33:24 AM

'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.

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

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.

https://i.imgur.com/RIv6OGr.png

Except he explicitly made an agreement, received considerations, which is when the contract becomes binding. Just because he changed the terms after reviving considerations does not mean he can unilaterally change the agreement. That is not how contracts work. If I order a pizza and the delivery guy gets here and I decide I don't want it any more, I am still legally obligated to pay for it because I ordered it and resources were expended getting it delivered. I can't offer to pay him 25% to make the contract go away for example.

You are simply cherry picking statements and ignoring the explicit agreement which I quoted above, including mutually agreed upon terms, as well as consideration, all the parts necessary to form a legal contract. The argument about an agreement over confidentiality is clearly implied, but also totally moot. The seller clearly made considerations. bob123 clearly agreed upon terms, and agreed to pay once the PM was sent. The moment the PM was sent the requirement for consideration was met, then furthermore later losses were accrued as a direct result of this fraudulently obtained consideration. I don't care how many other people oppose the flag. They are wrong. I don't make decisions based on what is popular. The ends do not justify the means. bob123's actions were fraud by any definition.