Quote from: bob123 on July 01, 2019, 08:47:42 AM

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

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.

IMO, this is an extremely vague interpretation of 'damage'.

I would understand this if i had intentionally replaced another buyer.
If the seller had backed out from the deal with another buyer and instead decided to trade with me, that indeed - under some circumstances - could be seen as damage.

But he has the same amount of money and goods before and after my conversation with him.
It basically didn't change anything except for the fact that i made this information public.

Quote from: IMadeYouReadThis on July 01, 2019, 08:39:30 AM

Bob123 promised to buy the accounts if the seller releases the details, but after the seller released the details, he just got under defective performance and the contract was breached as he promised one thing and did other. Hence the flag started by the seller is perfectly valid, it's your own judgement if you would like to support it or not but I think a genuine thinking towards the issue would show a serious breach of contract here.

The flag has not been started by the seller.
There was no damage resulting from rescinding from it.
There first has to be a contract, before there can be a breach of it.

You made an agreement. You received considerations under that agreement (the PM and the information resulting from it). At this point the contract was active. Rather than submitting payment as you agreed to, you then released that information (consideration) you received under false pretenses not only violating the contract, but causing damages which then took you firmly into fraud territory, not just contractual violations. This is quite clear cut, you even provided all the evidence yourself. All of this Playschool lawyering is not going to change the facts.