COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

i have no clue whats going on in this report i cant be fucked reading 11 pages but i was told to post this so here ya go!

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

 

TalonsGP thank you for bringing this to light

I really appreciate it as it shows he did know that the account was for sale.

As with the lie he's told to sythe most of the other shit are lies too. Him recovering the instant he found out, no gp on my account...

 

So this blows sythes argument clearly

You argued Racks was not permitted to sell the account without Colts knowing

But clearly he does know. So your 'rent to own' is nothing but a mere joke

 

infract this for spam if you want, but i'd like to note that i am not on either side of this report i don't care what happens i am just here to bring some light to the situation

 

this was in discord pm's

 

@All sythe mods @All sythe staff

 

Just Screenshared Talon:

Gyazo - ea86e114092cd729e3309e3c07e27fc8.png

Can confirm the screenshots are on his Discord.

 

Sorry sythe I was just relieved to see that and felt it necessary to inject my opinions

 

Technically if there is no duty of care, estoppel by negligence can't apply. The evidence also doesn't affect estoppel by representation.

Nevertheless, if we assume that a duty of care applied to any prospective buyer from Racks, then I think clearly this is overwhelming evidence of negligence, and that negligence had a strong causative effect on Esky buying the account. I think it is appropriate that such a duty of care should exist in this situation - if someone is trying to sell the asset subject to the hire purchase agreement, without making the final payment, and the owner of the asset knows about it, I think it's very fair to say that should take steps to inform the prospective buyer, or contact the seller at the very least. Silence is unacceptable.

 

Gun is threatening to scam

Gyazo - 0adfda45c8c3150594ffac5cab1e7002.png

@Sythe @Astro to clarify i thought discord was like the spam forum (meaning what is there isnt really real, am i correct? "im scamming tommy, watch me" but nothing can happen to user saying they will scam tommy tomorrow)

as of like 10 days ago or is that incorrect? just want to know for some future reference.

 

I don't know whether estoppel by acquiescence applies as an exception to the Nemo rule. Certainly yes, Colts would be estopped from saying he didn't consent to Racks' attempted resale. This means Colts consented to the resale. If the legal owner authorizes the resale, they may then, presumably further be estopped from saying they did not authorize the sale, which would presumably mean they have no rights to claim better title over the chattel.

 

'He's selling your acc right'

He knows it's his account. Look at the title quest cape etc

Let's not even argue that he didn't know the sale of the account any longer please

 

Going to get some sleep. Thanks admins/staff and the community for helping with this matter