Resolve

Hi friends,

Following a discussion with our staff, we have concluded that the circumstances do not warrant the forfeiture of the deposit. Before I proceed to motivate the ruling, I wish to underscore two important points:

1. The onus of bearing the risk associated with the inclusion of 'ambiguous' and 'broad' clauses within the ToS rests upon the party that sends the ToS (as opposed to the contracting party). We construe provisions in a manner that mandates unequivocal delineation of the entitlements to be derived from these provisions. Should these provisions remain imprecise and remain devoid of further specification, we shall therefore adopt a more 'restrictive' interpretation.
   
   
2. Secondly, certain overarching provisions are construed in congruence with Sythe's nomenclature. For instance, the term 'service provider' is a core concept within Sythe's taxonomy. Deviating from the 'folk interpretation' of such definitions is permissible, if specifically specified and elaborated in the ToS. In summation, it is advisable to establish explicit arrangements pertaining to the associated risks and engage in discourse thereof, as opposed to incorporating vague and expansive provisions with the expectation of securing safeguarding in a future dispute.
   
   Then to the dispute. Addressing the specific issues:
   1. The provision concerning customer accounts is inapplicable. Accounts intended for future acquisition constitute stock accounts and is something different than customer accounts. The specific provision is pertinent to customer accounts and stock accounts, and thus, it is not applicable. Moreover, even in the hypothetical existence of such a provision, it remains unproven that Chana is accountable for the bans. Although we recognize that this may be frustrating given, Chana's involvement within the plugin community, it does not serve as hard evidence
      
      
   2. The clause 'Giving any information regarding orders or any information pertaining to 3rd parties outside of the primal services staff and workers' is inherently vague and expansive. If construed in its most extensive sense, this provision could deem almost any action by Chana involving a Primal-related order as a breach. Such a construal we deem unreasonable, consequently prompting our adoption of a more 'restrictive' interpretation. When ruling this, 'information' is construed as data whose leakage would precipitate harm to Primal Services. Throughout the course of this dispute, Primal has not substantiated the leakage of such data. Furthermore, the information proffered by Chana in this thread does not breach the provision, given the absence of explicit indication of harm to Primal and the information's reasonable nature, not suggestive of its use for the substantiation of Chana's arguments within this dispute.
   Finally, there is not enough to assert that Chana has engaged in collaboration with another 'service provider or alike.' Moreover, a broad construal of 'or alike' would entail a general prohibition of engagement, as I implied in my previous post. Consequently, we adopt a more 'restrictive' construal of this ambiguous term. So no breach here either.
   
   Please pay Chana his deposit, @Primal

 

@ChanaMasala Please provide us with the transaction ID of your deposit payment so we can refund it.

Thank you @President for handling this dispute.

 

BTC Address - bc1q4pd9sdmaqmec0mkxd3px2lf30fhste7m9dtqqv

Thanks President for the fair ruling.

 

@ChanaMasala
Please provide the transaction ID from PayPal, where you paid your deposit, in order to get it refunded.

 

Sorry I will not be able to provide paypal, last time I used it, yours/mine paypal got banned and many customers got it too, I will not put it at risk. I sent $550 to you when I paid my despoit as FnF which cost me almost $580 ish. For the security of my Paypal I will not provide it since 1 of it already got banned by sending/recieveing your money.

 

Oh you are asking about the deposit I sent, not sure, I have a few .. here you go.

Screenshot - a041efe9512103ba5dea28d3ed1ad7c7 - Gyazo
Screenshot - 6cfa4045f092ab4ceb40d1b4a8b495a8 - Gyazo

Not sure which one is it, lemme know date, tho we should not be needing this, the $500+ shows in my Primal Wallet, how it got there is on you, it should be paid to me via any means, be it BTC or any other, thats the standard norm. You take 10% on paypal transaction so even if I send $500 you will only add $450 to my wallet anyways.

Please do not waste my time any further.

 

Just remembered, I sent my deposit in 2 halves as we discussed around november.

 

This was sent to <Removed> (Your older Paypal)
$ 220 - 80K94777LJ814905Y

These were sent to the new Paypal (Primal Services)
$160 - 5KF15133U9183772C
$ 77 - 6KK59686H51740110
$ 70 - 8XX22819KG2427644
$ 70 - 52X98539RR999045F

Since my 1 paypal got banned, I cannot get a few, but I believe $220 was my first half of the deposit then these are the later ones (or one of them is).

 

Who proposed to pay the deposit through PayPal? @Primal @ChanaMasala

 

This request came from @ChanaMasala, due to him not having access to crypto at the time

 

Well nvm then, just pay it on my paypal from a safe account please. Sharing email with you in discord dms.

 

Let me know when you've received the payment @ChanaMasala

 

Seems like Paypal doesn't approve of me sending you things or refunding due to the account ban.
please confirm the crypto wallet to pay this out.

 

BTC- bc1q4pd9sdmaqmec0mkxd3px2lf30fhste7m9dtqqv

 

The Mempool Open Source Project®

 

Its received @President .

 

thanks gentlemen, closing