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.
Invitation to treat, ability to examine goods, performance of terms, counter offer, variations, clarity all are part of forming a contract.
It is not cherry picking. It is viewing the entire discussion as a whole.
If there was a contract for $280 as you claim then why are they discussing different accounts and amounts instead ? It shows that a deal had not been made yet.
I do think that Bob narrowly escaped being in breach of contract.
With any commercial disputes - some require court action to resolve. Two parties enter court and usually only one party is found to be correct when it comes to determining if there was a contract or not. Both sides usually have smart lawyers.
In commercial conflicts the consumer has rights. Terms have to be clear. To say there a contract wherethere was a condition of privacy would require some discussion around that. That is absent from the chat log.
There is also a consistent trend of the seller believing the buyer will not follow through with a sale. It shows that the seller knows that there is a risk of a "no sale".
I doubt that we will agree on whether there was a contract or not. However we should agree that this is one of the most controversial flags. It is not a straight forward one.