COLTS7841 - A technical Core - PROLIFIC SCAMMER - BAN IMMEDIATELY

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

@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'.

 

Can anybody find me a legal translator please?

 

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.

 

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.