COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

To liken it to your example here. The account caught fire (scammed), could have rained, hailed, caught fire, been banned, gotten muted, gotten recovered by someone else, had sex with @Astro or whatever.

Regardless it doesnt matter. Going into the sale, Colts knew there was a chance of Racks scamming. He adjusted the price of payments so that IF racks scammed AND the account was un-usable he had at least one or two payments which was enough.

The account was resold, it could have been banned, could have caught fire, could have had double anal sex with @Gun and @Mootrucks with a facial from @TalonsGP it doesnt matter. Colts sold it knewing that was a risk, the risk happened.

You cannot put a quarter into a slot machine, win a jackpot AND get the original quarter back. You may win more than the original quarter, but the one you put in is still in the machine.

Colts sold the account, the quarter is gone. He didn't win, and cannot take his quarter back.

 

Can we please stop with the metaphors, legal rap battles, and hypothetical situations?

It's a damn RuneScape account for God sakes.

 

Of course he could recover it. What if he recovered it and it was banned? Why does he now get to scam @Eksy

Its true he is the one scamming Eksy, not Racks. This report IS valid.

 

My solution is the only one that makes any shred of sense in this situation. Take it or leave it.

 

I agree that estoppel by representation would not have been made out, and I had estoppel by negligence in mind; I didn't think that could be made out, although it's probably the strongest argument in favour of Esky - that Colts conducted himself negligently in a way that gave the perception that Racks had good title to pass.

The hardest part would be to establish that Colts owed a duty of care to Esky (or more specifically, anyone that Racks may have resold the account to). I don't think a duty exists and even if it did, that it was breached. You may or may not have considered it yet, but I think a lot of people are making an argument along this line of reasoning (I think that was Shin's main argument). Do you think Sythe users owe a duty to all other prospective account buyers when they sell their account on Sythe?

 

To finalize my opinion on the basis of what's been presented so far:

1. I think Colts is entitled to keep the account - I don't think he was too negligent in his conduct in his brief vouches or otherwise.
2. I begrudgingly accept that if the 80m payment is Colts by right on default, then we have little scope to take the whole amount and put it towards Esky. However, I think in this situation, taking into account everything, exercising discretion may be appropriate to let Colts keep the amount that is commensurate with the risk he took in entering into the rent to buy agreement, the remainder being given to Esky. I think deposits for a house are usually 10%, sometimes a little bit more, so I'll start with that, and Colts can keep 10% of the full purchase price, and the remainder of the 80m should go to Esky to redress, as much as possible, this unfortunate situation.
3. All items that Esky put on the account must be returned - it is a question of evidence as to what was put there, and I haven't seen anything argued on this point.

 

I'm just going to say I still dont understand why Colts is getting his account + anything. Youre not supposed to make money on someone else getting scammed.

Why do you want to Jew the man out of 10% of anything he could recoup from losing 100s of dollars. Colts is fine, he has everything back and is down nothing. Its riDONGulous that you would want to give him anything. Its like im the only one sticking up for doing what is right in this situation.

Why are you giving Colts money ontop of his account? It literally doesnt make sense.

Whether its favoratism by you guys or just completely retarded I cant tell at this point.

 

I have sir and your decision is wrong. Completely. 100%. Uncategorically Incorrect.

 

While I would be fine with giving esky part of the 80m, this was my original intent as an act of good will. I had no contact with esky how could I scam someone I had no contact with? Regardless back to the point I feel that after how extremely toxic he has been to me, how he has attempted to slander my name by calling me a "prolific scammer" upon many other things I feel I shouldn't owe him anything. But if it comes out that I must give him part of the 80m I will.

I'm also excited for him to show the full chat logs between me and him should be a funny read

 

Only to respond to how he has acting at the moment, you have to remember he's down hundreds of $'s. I think we can all empathize; with both of you, since you haven't done much wrong IMO, and yet he's calling you out.

C'est la vie.

 

Hoping I don't get infracted for this, but I wanted to point out a few things and I'll make it short

1: Colts/Racks agreed on weekly payments. The vouch saying the trade was completed was on Nov. 17th, presumably the date the first payment was made. Colts posted his report on Nov. 22nd, 5 days after the account sale and 2 days before the second payment was due. We can only assume that's when the account was recovered from Esky, since we don't have a clear timeline of events. For all we know Racks could've scamquit to be able to afford to pay for the account. Obviously no one thinks that's the case, but I just want to point out the fact that Colts didn't give much thought before recovering the account because... V

2: There's no reason why Colts couldn't give notice before recovering the account and allowing Esky the chance to retreive his wealth from it. He had him added on Skype and knew that he bought the account from Racks. It wasn't a time-sensitive manner and he didn't need to immediately recover the account without allowing Esky to retrieve anything he might have had on the account.

3. I disagree that this was a rent-to-own agreement and that the 80M is a forfeit, despite the fact that this situation is very similar to a rent-to-own scenario. If you move into a rent-to-own home, you are not immediately the owner of the house. Your landlord still has rights to the house until payments are complete. In this case, complete ownership was transferred to Racks immediately. Colts doesn't knock on the door and ask to take a look around every 3 months to make sure everything looks okay. He doesn't care because he's not the owner, he's just a seller who has the option to re-claim his property if payments are not made as they were agreed upon.

The two options for the 80M:
A: Colts keeps it as an inconvenience fee for not being able to access his account for 5 days
B: It goes towards repaying Esky for Racks' scam, since he's actually out 525M while Colts is out nothing but five days of gameplay on an account that he has no interest in playing anyways
B Seems a lot more fair to me

It's 3:42 AM I probably fucked up a lot in this post but whatever. Hopefully I'm not temped when I wake up

 

Nah, Colts. Just sell the account again in installments, have the person you sold it to scam you, let them resell it before they scammed you, and then take the account back and keep repeating.

If you get away with it once, you can keep doing it again since exchanging vouches and acting like you sold the account when you really didn't isn't against the rules.

 

Do you know how stupid and close minded the statement you made is, obviously not since you decided to post something so stupid.

 

Nice ad hominem.

You exchanged vouches with Racks which indicates a trade. Why would you do that? I won't engage in personal attacks because I'm not a monkey, and I know that they accomplish nothing. You must be quite happy getting to scam somebody and get away with it. Maybe you can repeat it in the future.

 

1) Racks wouldn't have been able to recover the account with only having the account for a week

2) king trix you are an utter retard so stop posting.