Quote from: onemorebtc on November 28, 2014, 05:53:42 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 28, 2014, 05:35:55 AM

Quote from: onemorebtc on November 28, 2014, 05:24:53 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 28, 2014, 05:21:44 AM

This whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. These two made an agreement. Verification violated it. Therefore he has no more rights under that agreement correct?

no, because if the agreement is void the payment has to be given back.

its the same with returning a good you dont like back to store and requesting back your money (at least this works where i live... dont know about other countries)

the only way for the "store" to not repay is if the good is damaged.

No. the agreement was not resolved mutually. Verification VIOLATED the agreement (ie broke the contract) meaning it is void, and he has no protections under it.

"Any kind of contract may be considered broken ("breached") once one party unconditionally refuses to perform under the contract as promised, regardless of when performance is supposed to take place. This unconditional refusal is known as a "repudiation" of a contract.

Once one party to a contract indicates--either through words or actions--that it's not going to perform its contract obligations, the other party can immediately claim a breach of contract (failure to perform under the contract) and seek remedies such as payment. This is sometimes called an anticipatory breach of contract. Read on to learn more about the concepts of repudiation and anticipatory breach of contract. (For more information on disputes involving breach of contract, see Nolo's article Breach of Contract: Material Breach.)"

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/breach-of-contract-anticipatory-breach-32653.html

i must admit as english is not my native english i dont fully understand your link; but i tried.

AFAIK we agree that Niann does not have to pay back beacuse of the "damaged" user-account (btw who wrote the first neg-trust? Niann or Verification)?
imho it doesnt matter who made it public, because the scam action by verification in itself is the damage.

for our other discussion:i can only say as far as german law goes, there a two possibilites:

- contract-law (B2B only): you have to explicit write down what happens if one party breaches the contract. otherwise the contract is just void and stopped in its current state (means: if the payment is already made he can keep it, if not he wont get it).

- customer buying something in an online store from a company:
the company has to give back the money if the customer comes back before two weeks. the only reason why the company can refuse to pay back is if the good is damaged

i dont know what happens in a customer2customer trade or if there are differences. in many cases german courts said that any ebay-seller is a shop (even if he just sells one item) - so i guess(!) we could say Niann acted as a company or store in this case.

btw the same is different for lending: in this case Niann could go after user verification to get what its account is worth (i've sold a hero account for about 1BTC so maybe he has even a claim for more)

This is pretty much my conclusion. Verification should probably just be happy Niann has no interest in having him sent to prison. Requesting loans as another person for $9000 is enough to get you jail time in most countries. As far as Niann being a "shop" he was providing a service, so its not as if it could be returned for a refund.