COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

[xLiquidsnake]

It wasn't rent to own he sold it to him. Was never a rent to own situation. He decided he would take 5 weekely payments as his form of payment for the account. The account was clearly sold.

Why would you ever make a weekly payment plan for a account you sold is beyond me. He just wanted to shift his account. More importantly he vouched for the account being sold too. He made it seem as if the account was fully paid for by racks on racks himself. Come on man.

 

[Dave]

Did Colts give permission to Racks to resell the account?

If not, I don't understand how this thread was up for a week without anything being said.
[$300 Donor] - Selling LEGENDARY main - 7 X 99's - Quest cape - TRUSTED - Instalments accepted

In addition, the vouches made on Colts' selling thread gave the impression the account had been sold and paid for (by both parties).
[$50 Donor] MAXED Main* 250 Quest Point* (CHEAP!)

Yeah this re-sell should have been a MAJOR red flag. I don't think Colts is the rightful owner of the account anymore.

 

It wasn't rent to own he sold it to him. Was never a rent to own situation. He decided he would take 5 weekely payments as his form of payment for the account. The account was clearly sold.

That's literally a rent-to-own agreement. He only made one payment.

Why would you ever make a weekly payment plan for a account you sold is beyond me. He just wanted to shift his account. More importantly he vouched for the account being sold too. He made it seem as if the account was fully paid for by racks on racks himself. Come on man.

Saying it's sold on the original sales thread when a rent to own agreement has been made is correct. He did not say "paid in full". If I sell you a car on a payment plan and you drive it away, you've taken possession of it. I'm going to take down my ads or write on them "sold". I'm not going to write "I've received one payment under a rent to own scheme watch this space to see if its paid in full"

 

[Dave]

That's literally a rent-to-own agreement. He only made one payment.



Saying it's sold on the original sales thread when a rent to own agreement has been made is correct. He did not say "paid in full". If I sell you a car on a payment plan and you drive it away, you've taken possession of it. I'm going to take down my ads or write on them "sold". I'm not going to write "I've received one payment under a rent to own scheme watch this space to see if its paid in full"

Okay but they if the user re-sold the car wouldn't there need to be some type of notice/wouldn't you as the owner say something? Lol

 

[Dave]

For the record I don't think Colts is a scammer, it's just fairly obvious that Racks fucked you both over

 

[malakadang]

If you want to talk about who 'owns' the account, there are two strands which give opposite conclusions:

1. Nemo dat quod non habet - what Richard talked about, and the account reverts back to Colts
2. Bona fide purchase for value without notice - as Esky took the account for value, and without notice of the rent-to-own agreement, he takes title/has a better claim than Colts.

I prefer the latter one.

 

Did Colts give permission to Racks to resell the account?

If not, I don't understand how this thread was up for a week without anything being said.
[$300 Donor] - Selling LEGENDARY main - 7 X 99's - Quest cape - TRUSTED - Instalments accepted

Colts claims not to have seen it.

In addition, the vouches made on Colts' selling thread gave the impression the account had been sold and paid for (by both parties).
[$50 Donor] MAXED Main* 250 Quest Point* (CHEAP!)

Sold is still the correct word when something is conditionally sold as opposed to unconditionally sold. The interaction did give the impression of paid in full but it didn't actually state that.

This conversation between racks and colts was given to me by colts.

I think the implied message here is "after you're done paying for it, you can resell it" however that is up for interpretation by staff.

 

If you want to talk about who 'owns' the account, there are two strands which give opposite conclusions:

1. Nemo dat quod non habet - what Richard talked about, and the account reverts back to Colts
2. Bona fide purchase for value without notice - as Esky took the account for value, and without notice of the rent-to-own agreement, he takes title/has a better claim than Colts.

I prefer the latter one.

Generally BFP refers to real estate or other assets which are conveyed via exchange of contracts, using lawyers to check titles. If the checks come back clean, and the conveyancing takes place, and then later out of nowhere someone pops up with a superior claim to the land, then the law of equity under BFP can prevent reversion of the title to the superior claim.

 

[malakadang]

Generally BFP refers to real estate or other assets which are conveyed via exchange of contracts, using lawyers to check titles. If the checks come back clean, and the conveyancing takes place, and then later out of nowhere someone pops up with a superior claim to the land, then the law of equity under BFP can prevent reversion of the title to the superior claim.

I think it has also been extended, as an exception to the nemo rule for personal property where the seller is in possession.

 

I think it has also been extended, as an exception to the nemo rule for personal property where the seller is in possession.

Source?

 

Incidently Nemo dat quod non habet is very important for commerce. If it were overturned it would effectively mean that anyone could steal and sell anything, and the new "owner" would be the legit owner. In otherwords it would create a form of wholesale and common property laundering: Turning stolen goods into legit goods. This is one of the primary pragmatic reasons the doctrine has stuck for so long, in addition to the obvious logical reason that you cannot transfer a title you do not have.

 

[malakadang]

25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (UK) as an example:

Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the documents of title to the goods, the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agent acting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, shall have the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same.

EDIT: The more recent 1979 Act (s 24), which has identical wording.

 

[malakadang]

I haven't done Sale of Goods Acts', so I can't say a whole lot on the topic, but I do know that the BPFVWN rule can be an exception.

I also don't think this is a situation where we say the Nemo rule has no effect. We can start with it, then see whether the BPFVWN rule applies in this situation as an exception. There are policy arguments both ways, but ultimately, I think the point is half-moot in our situation since ultimately, one party loses out, and that will ultimately impact on quantum when an appropriate remedy has to be decided.

Both rules can be exploited, but the BPFVWN rule tries to carve out areas in which 'justice' may not be served under the application of the Nemo rule - there are many such exceptions to it.

EDIT: To guard against the laundering of stolen goods, we can have it that the BPFVWN does not apply to situations where goods are stolen, and so Nemo would continue to apply - I think that may also be an exception codified in Statute somewhere. Whether the failure to make the payments under the agreement in this case falls into that category is a separate issue.

 

25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 (UK) as an example:

Where a person having sold goods continues or is in possession of the goods, or of the documents of title to the goods, the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agent acting for him, of the goods or documents of title under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of the previous sale, shall have the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same.

1. Statutes aren't common law
2. You can't take one part of a statute in isolation, unlike legal doctrine which usually can be taken in isolation.
3. That's an Act from 1893 (here's the up to date version Sale of Goods Act 1979 )
4. Here is the updated version

Where a person having bought or agreed to buy goods obtains, with the consent of the seller, possession of the goods or the documents of title to the goods, the delivery or transfer by that person, or by a mercantile agent acting for him, of the goods or documents of title, under any sale, pledge, or other disposition thereof, to any person receiving the same in good faith and without notice of any lien or other right of the original seller in respect of the goods, has the same effect as if the person making the delivery or transfer were a mercantile agent in possession of the goods or documents of title with the consent of the owner.

As is common with statutes it's not what you think. All it speaks about is possession of the goods and documents of title (not the title itself, which is a legal concept). s21 provides codified version of the Nemo rule:

Subject to this Act, where goods are sold by a person who is not their owner, and who does not sell them under the authority or with the consent of the owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller’s authority to sell.

I haven't done Sale of Goods Acts', so I can't say a whole lot on the topic, but I do know that the BPFVWN rule can be an exception.

I also don't think this is a situation where we say the Nemo rule has no effect. We can start with it, then see whether the BPFVWN rule applies in this situation as an exception. There are policy arguments both ways, but ultimately, I think the point is half-moot in our situation since ultimately, one party loses out, and that will ultimately impact on quantum when an appropriate remedy has to be decided.

Both rules can be exploited, but the BPFVWN rule tries to carve out areas in which 'justice' may not be served under the application of the Nemo rule - there are many such exceptions to it.

The no notice element of BFP refers to the idea that if there was an owner of real property with superior title they should have REGISTERED their interest somewhere. Even if its just in a public newspaper. This is called giving notice, and is a legal concept. The reason this is important is because when you buy real property, searches for outstanding interests are done by the conveyancers. What BFP covers is when those searches and checks ARE DONE but nothing comes up, and yet still there is a superior claim. Basically BFP requires a due diligence element. So did Esky ask for the previous owners of the account and interview them as to what the status of the account was? If he had and they had all said it was free and clear to the best of their knowledge then BFP would probably apply.

 

[malakadang]

@Sythe
Here's how I'm seeing the application of the statute:

Where [Racks] having agreed to buy [the account] obtains, with the consent of [Colts], possession of the [account]... the delivery or transfer by [Racks] of the [account] under the [sale to Esky] who receives [the account] in good faith and without notice of any [rights Colts still had in the account], has the same effect as if [Racks], who made the delivery, was an agent in possession of the [account] with the consent of [Colts].

It applies as an exception to the Nemo rule, because if Racks acted as an Agent of Colts, and Colts consented to the sale, then presumably Colts cannot say he is the true owner, because Statute deems he has consented with the second sale: he would be estopped from making such a denial. To put it more precisely, the CL doctrines of apparent authority and estoppel by representation seem to apply, once we accept that Esky took 'in good faith and without notice'.

 

[Shin]

Can anybody find me a legal translator please?

 

@Sythe
Here's how I'm seeing the application of the statute:

Where [Racks] having agreed to buy [the account] obtains, with the consent of [Colts], possession of the [account]... the delivery or transfer by [Racks] of the [account] under the [sale to Esky] who receives [the account] in good faith and without notice of any [rights Colts still had in the account], has the same effect as if [Racks], who made the delivery, was an agent in possession of the [account] with the consent of [Colts].

s25(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

M1Consumer Credit Act 1974 under which the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments, and the property in the goods is to remain in the seller (notwithstanding that the buyer is to be in possession of the goods) until such conditions as to the payment of instalments or otherwise as may be specified in the agreement are fulfilled.

It applies as an exception to the Nemo rule, because if Racks acted as an Agent of Colts, and Colts consented to the sale, then presumably Colts cannot say he is the true owner, because Statute deems he has consented with the second sale: he would be estopped from making such a denial. To put it more precisely, the CL doctrines of apparent authority and estoppel by representation seem to apply, once we accept that Esky took 'in good faith and without notice'.

Firstly, we are not Britain and not subject to their statutes. Sythe is a private club, wherein members agree to subject themselves to private arbitration that we provide free of charge in the event of a dispute between members. In effect we are our own jurisdiction for the purpose of civil dispute resolution.

Secondly we have no evidence that Colts gave Racks permission to sell before all five payments were made. A reasonable person would not expect to be allowed to sell a car for full value to a third party when they had only made one payment.

If we are agreed that it is Racks who is in the wrong completely in this case then we cannot punish Colts. If we are not in agreement that Racks is in the wrong completely, then please explain what evidence of wrong doing is against Colts.

 

[Shin]

Secondly we have no evidence that Colts gave Racks permission to sell before all five payments were made. A reasonable person would not expect to be allowed to sell a car for full value to a third party when they had only made one payment.

A reasonable person wouldn't sign over the title to their car until all payments were made. The same applies for changing the e-mail on the account, which should have never been changed until Racks had sent all payments. I'm aware some rules of the real world don't apply in this scenario. As in, it's nearly impossible to restore ownership for your car once the title has been signed over, but those who sell RuneScape accounts can freely recover them at will. I don't find that to be a relevant factor for my example, however.

 

[johnp1995]

If this is allowed, then this scam could easily be replicated.

I could theoretically work with a trusted member in "purchasing" his account through weekly payments and exchange vouches with him. I could then sell the account under this trusted member's name and then the original trusted member could recover and me and him would split the gold.

This is easily exploitable if allowed.

 

If this is allowed, then this scam could easily be replicated.

I could theoretically work with a trusted member in "purchasing" his account through weekly payments and exchange vouches with him. I could then sell the account under this trusted member's name and then the original trusted member could recover and me and him would split the gold.

This is easily exploitable if allowed.

Well its just as easily exploitable the other way around. Pay a friend to buy an account for you on a payment plan, have him make one payment on it then sell it to you. Now you own the account outright and the friend gets banned. It allows for laundering.

Usually the solution to this is a securities register however in this case the account names themselves have to be private for fear of being banned. It seems then that we should alter the rules at minimum to say whether account was paid in full or paid in part on the original sales thread etc. But I think ultimately it must fall on the buyer to get an extensive account history, and also only deal with trusted account sellers.