COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

[malakadang]

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.

Sure, and I just quoted an example where exceptions to the Nemo rule have been carved, and think we should follow that exception in this case.

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.

I only wanted to make the point that I felt Esky had a better claim to the title. Colts has not committed any wrongdoing, however if you make the assessment that Esky has title, then Colts is only left with a debt to which Racks must repay - given he has absconded, that is unlikely. If you find that Colts has a better claim to title, then Colts takes possession of the account, and uses it to discharge the debt against Racks, whereas Esky is now left without an account, and probably has a debt for which Racks must repay - again, it is unlikely to be repaid; Esky would also be able to keep whatever items he put on the account.

As Colts was paid 80m for the account - the first part of the instalment - if we find that he is entitled to retake possession of the account, I think we should have Colts pay the 80m to Esky so as to ensure Colts is not unjustly enriched, and that Esky is helped as much as possible.

 

[johnp1995]

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.

Very true.

I just feel that the exchanging of vouches signifies a successful trade. If I were buying an account that is being resold, I would take a gander at the vouches to confirm the trade as well as the original selling thread which OP did in fact do.

If the trade was on going then I do not feel vouches should have been exchanged as vouches represent a finished deal.

If the precedent is set that Colts is not responsible, I just fear that trusted members could just half sell accounts to untrusted members that are working with them. The untrusted members would just resell the account under the trusted seller's name and split the cash with the trusted seller as the untrusted member doesn't care about being banned after the account is recovered by the trusted member.

What's stopping somebody from doing this? Since we don't even care that vouches were exchanged, what other history would a buyer have to go through to ensure a successful trade?

 

Sure, and I just quoted an example where exceptions to the Nemo rule have been carved, and think we should follow that exception in this case.

It is codified and modified in various statutes around the world yes but in common law it very much stands.

I only wanted to make the point that I felt Esky had a better claim to the title. Colts has not committed any wrongdoing, however if you make the assessment that Esky has title, then Colts is only left with a debt to which Racks must repay - given he has absconded, that is unlikely. If you find that Colts has a better claim to title, then Colts takes possession of the account, and uses it to discharge the debt against Racks, whereas Esky is now left without an account, and probably has a debt for whcih Racks must repay - again, it is unlikely to be repaid; Esky would also be able to keep whatever items he put on the account.

So run me through the logic here:
Colts gave his account to a scammer
Esky gave his money to a scammer.

Colts got his account back.
Esky can't get his money back.

Now the just outcome is that Colts is forced to give his account to Esky???

As Colts was paid 80m for the account - the first part of the instalment - if we find that he is entitled to retake possession of the account, I think we should have Colts pay the 80m to Esky so as to ensure Colts is not unjustly enriched, and that Esky is helped as much as possible.

This is not unjust enrichment. In a rent to own agreement if you fail to make payments, the chattel is repossessed. And unless there are explicit terms for the refund of previous installments those are also forfeit. There is opportunity cost and risk involved with selling an account via a rent-to-own agreement. What if the account is banned after day 1 and payments therefore cease, now nothing can be sold. These risks and opportunity costs are balanced by the risk on the buyer's side of forfeiting his payments if he doesn't complete the payment plan.

In my view the short and thick of it is this: Racks was a scammer who unsuccessfully scammed Colts and who successfully scammed Esky.

 

Very true.

I just feel that the exchanging of vouches signifies a successful trade. If I were buying an account that is being resold, I would take a gander at the vouches to confirm the trade as well as the original selling thread which OP did in fact do.

If the trade was on going then I do not feel vouches should have been exchanged as vouches represent a finished deal.

If the precedent is set that Colts is not responsible, I just fear that trusted members could just half sell accounts to untrusted members that are working with them. The untrusted members would just resell the account under the trusted seller's name and split the cash with the trusted seller as the untrusted member doesn't care about being banned after the account is recovered by the trusted member.

What's stopping somebody from doing this? Since we don't even care that vouches were exchanged, what other history would a buyer have to go through to ensure a successful trade?

I think we just need to make sure people make clear when an account is being sold on a payment plan. As you point out the vouches are the crux of this.

 

[malakadang]

It is codified and modified in various statutes around the world yes but in common law it very much stands.

The CL may or may not have developed more robust exceptions to the original rule had Statute not intervened - it would be a broken-window argument to say otherwise. We will never see the suit which was never made. Likewise, we will never see an exception, which was never carved.

So run me through the logic here:
Colts gave his account to a scammer
Esky gave his money to a scammer.

Colts got his account back.
Esky can't get his money back.

Now the just outcome is that Colts is forced to give his account to Esky???

Esky had the account, and Colts recovered it.

Colts sold his account on an installments scheme - the unpaid installments were a debt in his favour. We all know that debts can be defaulted on. Colts assumed that risk.
Esky purchased an account. Esky did not do a sufficient background check on the account. We all know accounts can be recovered. Esky assumed that risk

Racks defaulted in the payments / breached the agreement.

The question arises here as to whether Colts is justified in recovering the account. It is not so much that Colts should be 'forced to give his account to Esky', but rather, if Esky had good title, that Colts was never entitled to recover the account in the first place, and so that act should be undone.

This is not unjust enrichment. In a rent to own agreement if you fail to make payments, the chattel is repossessed. And unless there are explicit terms for the refund of previous installments those are also forfeit. There is opportunity cost and risk involved with selling an account via a rent-to-own agreement. What if the account is banned after day 1 and payments therefore cease, now nothing can be sold. These risks and opportunity costs are balanced by the risk on the buyer's side of forfeiting his payments if he doesn't complete the payment plan.

In my view the short and thick of it is this: Racks was a scammer who unsuccessfully scammed Colts and who successfully scammed Esky.

I agree with the second part, and would only add that Colts now has an account and 80m, and Esky has no account, no items, and no money.

 

[Shin]

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.

Bump.

 

The CL may or may not have developed more robust exceptions to the original rule had Statute not intervened - it would be a broken-window argument to say otherwise. We will never see the suit which was never made. Likewise, we will never see an exception, which was never carved.

On the contrary, because the common law was so widely exported to the world with the advent of internationally commerce, and because it is practiced in so many jurisdictions and because the judges of those jurisdictions frequently will look to the common law of other jurisdictions, you will find that we can see the effects in both a jurisdiction with a particular statute and in one without. To my knowledge the principle has never been overturned in common law. And each time it is bent, it is subsequently bent back. The only consistent exception that I know of has been public auctions.

Esky had the account, and Colts recovered it.

Colts sold his account on an installments scheme - the unpaid installments were a debt in his favour. We all know that debts can be defaulted on. Colts assumed that risk.
Esky purchased an account. Esky did not do a sufficient background check on the account. We all know accounts can be recovered. Esky assumed that risk

Racks defaulted in the payments / breached the agreement.

Good analysis I agree with everything here.

The question arises here as to whether Colts is justified in recovering the account. It is not so much that Colts should be 'forced to give his account to Esky', but rather, if Esky had good title, that Colts was never entitled to recover the account in the first place, and so that act should be undone.

In my mind regardless of the further actions of Racks after breaking his rent-to-own contract with Colts, Colts is fully entitled to recover his account. The idea that the existence of Esky, who could easily have been completely unknown to Colts and to us, should change the outcome of a private contract, when Esky had no part in the contract is repugnant to privity of contract. If this precedent were set it opens the door for attaching third parties who are wronged in some arbitrary way to almost any contract, wherein further they would now enjoy rights as a result of the contract but have no responsibilities in the contract.

For example if I agreed to lecture C++ to you for a tuition fee of $2,000 and you as a result, thinking you knew C++ very well agreed to teach it to some third party, under a such a precedent that third party could sue me on the basis that I didn't teach you properly. It would be a mad house.

I agree with the second part, and would only add that Colts now has an account and 80m, and Esky has no account, no items, and no money.

True but we are concerned with equality before the law / equal application of the rules, not equality of outcome.

Shin said: ↑
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.
Bump.

Likewise the argument could be made that a reasonable person wouldn't make 4/5 payments for an account that didn't even have their email set. Some sort of negotiation no doubt took place as to satisfy both parties before entering the agreement. Unless you are arguing that Colts actually sold the account to Racks for 80m, I don't think it changes the outcome?

 

[Shin]

Likewise the argument could be made that a reasonable person wouldn't make 4/5 payments for an account that didn't even have their email set. Some sort of negotiation no doubt took place as to satisfy both parties before entering the agreement. Unless you are arguing that Colts actually sold the account to Racks for 80m, I don't think it changes the outcome?

I don't think that's the case. We're essentially holding @EskyBoy accountable for Colts selling the account on a blank IOU. A prearranged agreement between Colts and Racks not communicated to anybody else. From a community perspective, it appears the account was sold and paid for (which is almost always the case), with the account being up for resale for just shy of an entire week. Negligence seems to be a factor here, but it's being rewarded.

I do somewhat agree with statement below, but in the way that he successfully scammed Colts and unsuccessfully scammed Esky.

In my view the short and thick of it is this: Racks was a scammer who unsuccessfully scammed Colts and who successfully scammed Esky.

 

I don't think that's the case. We're essentially holding @EskyBoy accountable for Colts selling the account on a blank IOU. A prearranged agreement between Colts and Racks not communicated to anybody else. From a community perspective, it appears the account was sold and paid for (which is almost always the case), with the account being up for resale for just shy of an entire week. Negligence seems to be a factor here, but it's being rewarded.

I do somewhat agree with statement below, but in the way that he successfully scammed Colts and unsuccessfully scammed Esky.

So your argument is that because the email was changed to Racks, Racks effectively had full possession of the account (control over) and prima facie he appeared to also have title. And if Colts had not given over possession in full, Racks wouldn't have been able to make representations as being the full owner.

That's fine but Colts doesn't have a responsibility to ensure Racks doesn't scam people. If their contract said that possession in full would be given on first payment, that is up to them.

I agree we should alter the rules that payment plan agreements should be publicly notified in the vouch or on the sale thread.

 

[malakadang]

In my mind regardless of the further actions of Racks after breaking his rent-to-own contract with Colts, Colts is fully entitled to recover his account. The idea that the existence of Esky, who could easily have been completely unknown to Colts and to us, should change the outcome of a private contract, when Esky had no part in the contract is repugnant to privity of contract. If this precedent were set it opens the door for attaching third parties who are wronged in some arbitrary way to almost any contract, wherein further they would now enjoy rights as a result of the contract but have no responsibilities in the contract.

Privity goes to standing and the rights/obligations under the K. Esky would not have standing to sue under the K between Colts and Racks, but he would have standing if he claims his account was stolen, assuming he has good title. If we find that Esky does not have good title, then I agree he has no standing.

True but we are concerned with equality before the law / equal application of the rules, not equality of outcome.

I don't think a finding that the 80m should go to Esky would contradict equality before the law. If this occurred to other people, in another scenario, so long as the reasoning still applies to the facts, I would not make a different finding/award.

Remedies are quite often the province of Equity as well, which is supposed to soften the harshness of the Common Law. It reinforces the law by making sure that justice is done in cases where there are shortcomings. As a court of conscience, I feel that saying that given Colts made a gain of 80m (or slightly less), as a matter of justice, it would be appropriate to give Esky that money. It is not so much that only Esky will benefit from the application of this rule, but rather, anyone else who finds themselves in Esky's shoes will also be put on to the path to restitution which I feel should be made in this case and those subsequent.

This might also be an avenue for Colt to consent to the payment of 80m, as a gesture of good faith, irrespective of our decision one way or the other. What does Colts think?

 

I don't think a finding that the 80m should go to Esky would contradict equality before the law. If this occurred to other people, in another scenario, so long as the reasoning still applies to the facts, I would not make a different finding/award.

Remedies are quite often the province of Equity as well, which is supposed to soften the harshness of the Common Law. It reinforces the law by making sure that justice is done in cases where there are shortcomings. As a court of conscience, I feel that saying that given Colts made a gain of 80m (or slightly less), as a matter of justice, it would be appropriate to give Esky that money. It is not so much that only Esky will benefit from the application of this rule, but rather, anyone else who finds themselves in Esky's shoes will also be put on to the path to restitution which I feel should be made in this case and those subsequent.

This might also be an avenue for Colt to consent to the payment of 80m, as a gesture of good faith, irrespective of our decision one way or the other. What does Colts think?

In order to award 80m to Esky you would have to explain how Colts has wronged Esky, and therefore in what way the 80m would right that wrong.

I don't think the facts bare out Esky having good title. He purchased an account in good faith from a scammer and then got scammed. This does not confer good title.

I suggest the Esky go after Racks if we can get any details off him. I don't support Colts being on the hook for anything Racks did.

I do support a rule change to make it clear when something is sold and paid in full or sold under payment plan.

 

[malakadang]

In order to award 80m to Esky you would have to explain how Colts has wronged Esky, and therefore in what way the 80m would right that wrong.

I'm approaching from a different line, in that the 80m gain is disgorged from Colts, and it ultimately finds its way back to Esky - as opposed to a compensation based analysis.

I do take the point however, that if the 80m was forfeit on Rack's default, then there would be no gain to disgorge. I cannot comment on how that works for rent-to-own agreements, so I shan't say anything on whether the 80m was or was not forfeit. All I will say though, is that if it was not forfeit, then it goes back to Racks, and since Racks owes Esky, the 80m can be subrogated directly to Esky - assuming it is not forfeit.

I didn't take into account the potential for forfeiture in my previous post, but now that I've considered it, I think exercising a discretion may be less justifiable. What an unpleasant conclusion.

I suggest the Esky go after Racks if we can get any details off him. I don't support Colts being on the hook for anything Racks did.

I agree Colts caused no loss, and so should not be liable for any compensation.

I do support a rule change to make it clear when something is sold and paid in full or sold under payment plan.

+1

 

[EskyBoy]

This is just beyond me and the bias in sythes decision is very clear

Thank you to Shin, Dave and Malak for strongly arguing my case. I genuinely appreciate you taking your time.

To point out the very fucking least.. sythe you are questioning whethere that 80M should go to me?

How the fuck does he get the right to recover the account when I had gp on there? When he didn't even tell me?

How the fuck does the burden of his scam fall on me?
How does he have the ability vouch saying ACCOUNT sold then come up with the bullshit it was an instalment plan?
Account was for sale for a week and he doesn't notice and say hey your not meant to sell it
HOW THE FUCK ARE WE IGNORING HIM JUST CLEANING THE BANK


I truly am shocked and mad about this. As a whole, through VERY VERY defensive reasoning by sythe for a technical core you have come to the conclusion to defraud me of 500M

There is no utter respect especially for the MANY issues that have arised from colts part. I as the VICTIM have done my a single thing wrong. This is vile and to defraud a 19 year old of £400 is a crime.

 

[EskyBoy]

Colts position - gets his account back, gets the 80M he had a payment, gets my 200M bank

My position - scammed clean for 500M

 

[Kaska]

This is just beyond me and the bias in sythes decision is very clear

Thank you to Shin, Dave and Malak for strongly arguing my case. I genuinely appreciate you taking your time.

To point out the very fucking least.. sythe you are questioning whethere that 80M should go to me?

How the fuck does he get the right to recover the account when I had gp on there? When he didn't even tell me?

How the fuck does the burden of his scam fall on me?
How does he have the ability vouch saying ACCOUNT sold then come up with the bullshit it was an instalment plan?
Account was for sale for a week and he doesn't notice and say hey your not meant to sell it
HOW THE FUCK ARE WE IGNORING HIM JUST CLEANING THE BANK


I truly am shocked and mad about this. As a whole, through VERY VERY defensive reasoning by sythe for a technical core you have come to the conclusion to defraud me of 500M

There is no utter respect especially for the MANY issues that have arised from colts part. I as the VICTIM have done my a single thing wrong. This is vile and to defraud a 19 year old of £400 is a crime.

If you can prove there was 200m on the account I will give you the gold

 

[EskyBoy]

To all those who have witnessed the fucking scum bag nature of this site

PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO NOT BUY AN ACCOUNT OF THIS SITE. EVEN SYTHE HIMSELF, PROBABLY COME OUT WITH SOME LAW SHIT ON WHY HE RECOVERED IT AFTER.

 

[EskyBoy]

How the fuck do I prove there was 200M. You are one smart fuck and you got me good
Prove there wasn't 200M

 

[Kaska]

How the fuck do I prove there was 200M. You are one smart fuck and you got me good
Prove there wasn't 200M

it's not my job to prove is wasn't there, it's your job to prove it's there. There was no gold on there so I would not give you 200m

 

[EskyBoy]

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU WANT ME TO PROVE IT
HOW THE FUCK CAN I??
FUCKING TELL ME BECAUSE YOU SURE SEEM AS IF THERE IS A WAY WHEN YOU FUCKING RECOVERED THE ACCOUNT WITHOUT EVEN TELLING ME YOU SCUM

 

[EskyBoy]

Just to let people know that this outcome will lead to loads more scam. Just watch
Seller A sells account to seller b on a instalment plan
Seller B sells somewhere else and doesn't pay A
Seller B runs away
Seller A recovers account with gold on it


For all it can be seller A and B are the same person. GG to person (me) who ended up purchasing it and putting gold on the account