LiTCoins Account Recovery (Divica OO)

Sure, but we're talking about a handful of mistakes out of 25000. 6 appeals were denied. I agree if the account is sold multiple times then there should be a stage where Divica can't be responsible, but this is not currently in the rules.
If you change it like that, what stops people from selling accounts, see that it is being sold once more and recover it with no liability? This is the only reason I think Divica should be responsible, otherwise you are opening a whole new section of scam possibilities.

 

They could do that, which would lead to people being more cautious about buying accounts off of people who aren't the original owners, which they should be anyway because situations like this happen. Your 6/25,000 number is also inaccurate. We really don't know how many OO's are unable to recover their accounts we just know that it is a reality and those 6 are a small sample of self-reporting users

 

The small handful of mistakes is Jagex's quote recovering an account for someone who isn't OO. You are right that we don't know how many oo's can't recover, but in my opinion and as with the 100s of scams that happen daily, we can safely say that jagex's system is fairly accurate.
The rules are barely read, I don't believe that it would change the amount of accs being resold. Actually, it's relevant but doesn't really hinder whether someone will buy the acc or not. It still allows the OO to recover without liability.

Only have just seen this. Like I said, I never explicitly asked the terms of if she can't recover. On sythe, and all other cases, people assume that if OO can't recover, they are reliable to refund. In other cases, this proof was not asked for. I understand that this would not be required if the trade was between Divica and myself. The pretense of me buying the account was based on the fact that they would recover the account if it is lost.
When they say they recover, I don't think anyone should have to ask whether that includes denied or accepted appeals. The detriment I suffer is that the account is no longer in my possession, and in an account sale, this is fully reliant on the original owner recovering, which they offered and didn't make good on.
This means I can go to people, offer recovery, but not state whether I'm liable for denied/accepted meaning I can scam this. This is the logic that I don't understand the 6/7 mods agree with.

Only real life situation I can think of is A sells B any item, with the promise of repair for whatever reason that the item is broken. B sells this to C, with the premise that the item has insurance, C confirms with A, C thinks it is fair and takes the item. Now the item is broken, C calls A, A has no possible way to fix the item. I would say A is liable in that situation, even if it is B who broke the item in the first place and then sold. Although B is in fault for selling a faulty item, A still offered an insurance whenever, and couldn't make good on their promise. Whether A stated if the 'fix' they offered worked or not, you fully assume that they mean they will fix it without issue, and that is a fair assumption.
If A cannot fix it even after multiple tries, and it is not his fault, it still means they have broken their deal. C would be entitled to the amount he paid for the item.
By current logic, Divica is up 430m, Lit is technically up 75m since the acc is in his possession, I am at -75m with an insurance not made good upon, but somehow Divica is not liable for her promise.
@malakadang

I leave all Excelont's quotes here. There is clear bias in this thread, and he is the only one who rules this as other threads have been. This is literally the only report where someone has been asked if they have proof of someone saying they are liable for refunding if they can't recover. It is fully assumed that they will if they can't recover, and this has been the case on all reports so far. Nobody has ever been asked to prove this. It is also the first report where the OO isn't held responsible for not being able to recover.
It is my proof that LiT is the one who recovered, but as Jagex hides it I*@o**. The username is an @outlook.com, Divica uses outlook. There is no way to know. There is no proof that Divica is not the one who stole the account. The likelyhood that LiT could recover an account that is not his is low, proven by video's proof. Is it not fishy that 1 recovery is successful, a random email put on it, why is that not considered a scam attempt? Now after a successful recovery, there are 6 denies. This is the first time you would ask someone to report with impossible proof in order of a fair refund.

 

I am looking for promises. The only statement I have seen is: "just let me know if you need any help with the account." From that, it doesn't follow that if they fail to recover the account they must refund you for it. I understand that the pretense for you buying the account was that you knew that Divica would recover it if it was lost. But, what was your assumption based on? I am trying to find what your assumption was based on, and if it was only based on the correspondence I have referred to, then that isn't enough in my opinion.

Just because the item has insurance, it does not follow that A must repair the item for C pursuant to the insurance agreement between A and B. You're not a party to the agreement between A and B and so the general rule is that you have no cause of action - your best argument is that A made a promise to C, and so A cannot go back on their promise. That requires a promise first, and requires an understanding of all correspondence between A and C.


All I am looking for is actual words spoken between you and Divica. The words I have seen don't support any promise to guarantee recovery, or compensate in lieu of that. I understand there is an overarching theme that the OO has a lot of responsibility for the accounts they sell, so I'm not uninclined to interpret correspondence between you an Divica in your favour. However, the words you've used, from what I've read, simply do not support what you want.

Above you said that "when they say they recover..." where were those words used between you and Divica? Can you please post all the correspondence you had between you and Divica before you purchased the account from LitCoins.

I take your point that if this case is being decided inconsistently with other cases, of an identical nature which were also decided very recently, then it seems unfair on you. Whether those other cases are identical in nature, I'm not sure; I'm only giving my 2c as to how I would analyze a case such as this. Hopefully we can give better guidance as to how these cases are resolved in the future, which probably gives you little comfort in the present.

 

The assumption is made from every report ever handled on this site. As I said, there is no proof of what you are asking, and I admit that. This will be the first time that anyone has had to provide prove that someone has not stated 'if we cant recover we dont have to refund'
The insurance, I feel I made enough contact for it to be clear that the only reason I am buying is that Divica would recover if I lose it. Nobody on Sythe has ever asked 'if you can't recover, will you refund'. It is assumed, by everyone. It would be like you selling me gold, then not sending the gold because I didn't ask if you would send the gold after I send the money.
There are no identical cases. This is the first time the OO is not held responsible for not being able to recover.

For the scenario, I stated that C requested the same insurance that B asked for, in which A agreed. Why you keep asking me for proof of this before the sale, there is literally a post on this thread, Divica worker who says she will recover at any time, and that is the terms of any sale they make, to whoever is the current owner. That is considered basic on Sythe. Why I don't provide what you ask is because I don't have it. Only the 'help' screenshot. As with everything else, that 'help' is more than easily assumed as recovering successfully. I didn't treat it as a full on contract, and nor will I ever on Sythe, I can't just be asking everything to be defined, nor does anyone do this. Reports with none of these defining terms have been handled in the buyers way, nor asked for.
It makes sense if you want these contract terms if this were a big, real-life affecting sale. It is not.

Let's give a real scenario as to why I find this very poor judgement.
Basically from the mods, the OO is not liable if info is given out.
From you, you are saying that contract terms define responsibility. They do. But in my opinion, on a blackmarket there are a lot of assumptions, which most people know and accept.
I've sold an account about a week ago, just a 40m trade. We made no terms, buyer literally paid me 40m, I gave login details, email and we were done. Why? Because of assumptions, and sythe rules. If he sells, I have no liability if I want to scam the person he sold to, because I didn't make terms with him, and I made non-exact wording on terms if the new buyer asks? what? Few fake recovery attempts and we good to go.
Mods scenario, if I had given the info, I am no longer liable as the OO if he sells, I can scam if I feel like it, once again fake any recovery attempts.
Note that if I do scam, I can easily fabricate the evidence due to Jagex's system, you guys technically assumed that that was Lit's email, which is your judgement, but it is not actually clear evidence.
Are we not seeing the issue here..

 

By default, a person has no rights and obligations owed towards others. In commerce, people typically agree to exchange certain goods and services on terms. These terms change the rights and obligations we owe. You claim that Divica has an obligation to recover the account or refund you. The corrolary is that you have that right. We need to identify the source of those rights and obligations.

Those rights and obligations can be express or implied. Most rights and obligations are implied - see how much paperwork is involved the next time you purchase something from a grocery store (zero). Yes there are a lot of assumptions on Sythe.org, like the real world, and these assumptions may form part of the implied terms of an agreement which affects your rights and obligations. Alternatively, you can be express about how you want your rights and obligations to be effected upon the commencement of an agreement. In resolving your case, we should analyze these separately.

The express rights and obligations are found in the correspondence between you and Divica. Since you seem to accept that there generally wasn't enough of an express promise that Divica would guarantee recovery or refund the money, you are relying on implied rights and obligations, the correspondence becomes irrelevant, your basic argument is that on Sythe.org we should recognize that the OO owes obligations to any and all future legitimate owners of the account, whether the OO may know of their existence or not. I personally disagree. There are many arguments for and against such implied rights and obligations. I understand your argument is that historically, Sythe has implied such rights and obligations in situations identical to your own, and so it would be unfair now to change the precedent. I agree that it does seem unfair from your perspective, and so the points of concern we have is how to resolve your dispute at present, and how to give proper guidance as to how future disputes of this nature will be resolved.

Hopefully that addresses most of what you've said, and hopefully you can see the angle I'm coming from. People make out a contract to be this esoteric concept, but it's not. All a contract is, is an agreement that lays out what the parties want from each other. What you want from each other can either be expressly laid out, or implied. If it is expressly laid out, we look at what was laid out and determine what it actually means. If it is implied, then we ask whether it should be implied. To reiterate, my analysis has only focussed on the express side - I've made little comment on whether the fact that the OO, Divica, should have to compensate you based on an implied obligation.

 

I understand what you are saying - and I haven't disagreed with you that in contract terms, I am owed nothing. We did not discuss what would happen if the account was recovered and Divica couldn't recover after- I feel that on Sythe rules, where an OO is responsible for recovering if the account is lost, it is safely assumed that if they cannot, they are liable for refund, whether or not stated. I have no argument other than if you believe details that are explictly stated, creating a contract, and if no details are stated, that they can override Sythe rules, you will have a very big problem with scam reports in the future.
On any resale accs they post this; http://i.imgur.com/f9JlJ2J.png
Why? Why would they bother? Because they know they are responsible for the account if it is sold, and they offer that trust that the account is secure because they are the OO.

From sythe rules, http://i.imgur.com/EsnSZFO.png
It states that the seller is the one who must bring up refund policy, not the buyer.

From this, it means I am under no obligation go bring up refund policy, it is actually the seller's job. In this case, I feel that whatever LiT offers is irrelevant, as he is not labeled the OO, he is not meant to offer anything, nor was anything discussed with him. In terms of a resale, I feel the fact that Divica agrees to confirm the account and offer 'help' is her assuming liability for recovery. It is her job to state that I am not entitled to a refund if she can't recover, which she didn't. Otherwise, why would she bother confirming accounts? Just for postcount? Why do they say they will recover anytime?

 

Going to respond to this part and say that LiT sold you the account, not Divica. You can't just say LiT selling you the account is irrelevant because Divica is the OO; if you purchased from Divica directly then that would be a different matter.

As to Divica confirming and offering 'help', I interpreted those comments to be part of good customer service, and along the lines of 'we'll do the best we can'. I would certainly not construe it as a guarantee.

 

Repeating over and over really sucks but
LiT is the seller, I didn't dispute that. But, he is not the OO, the account is technically not his, he has no guarantees to offer, because anything could happen. This is why, under the account sales rule, I believe Divica is the one meant to offer a policy. You are ignoring the fact that a representative has posted here saying 'we will recover anytime'. Saying they will 'help' it just in general poor practice, and that is my point. It is not customer service, it is their obligation if they go to the extent to confirm accounts are theirs, and is why they do so. So then their buyer can sell to someone with the pretense of trust.
If they didn't believe they had some sort of responsibility, they would just ignore resales and allow them to be sold but not under their name.

Maybe an example (real). Excelont was selling an account that wasn't his. This OO's policy was to recover at any time, and that is the base policy. That policy is considered as #1 as the OO has all the power in the situation. Excelont then offers a refund if the OO goes rogue (something along those lines) as the #2 option. They are following rules and offering proper policies, Divica and Lit have failed to do so. Whether the info is given to Excelont I wouldn't know, but that doesn't mean that ownership is transferred to Excelont. If we refer this back to my case - LiT has secondary responsibility to Divica in the case of recovery. This is common practice across Sythe.
Divica still has the power as the OO, and there is no proof that she isn't faking the appeals. As per rules, no policy discussed means that her opinion becomes irrelevant.

 

The policy applies to sellers. Divica was not the seller (to you), therefore the policy does not apply from Divica to you.

You cannot make up facts to prove a point, then apply the point you tried to the make from the made-up facts to the facts at hand when the facts are not analogous. Divica sold the account to Lit, and Lit sold the account to you. The account was not rented. The account was not leased. There are no options involved. The account was sold. On sale, ownership changes hands. There can be more complicated arrangements. This case does not strike me as having such arrangements.

 

Please do point out where I have made up facts. It's real, look at his post history? Divica and lit never pointed out policy? Common practice across sythe? well yes it is. What is the made up facts?
When I say ownership, I mean the burden of being the original owner. In RS account sales, the OO has the power to recover at any time, no matter what (some hiccups in jagex's system, but if you are the genuine creator of the account, jagex will know). Why I allude to 'ownership' is because a different mod says that Divica is not liable because info was handed out, meaning ownership is transferred. Yes technical ownership is transferred, but not the ability to do what the OO can do.
Maybe you haven't been on rs for a while. If the policy does not include the OO, then as I've said, you've got serious problems with scams coming up.
Technically I have the rights to the account in question, as I purchased it. Divica cannot recover it, so...

 

If the policy has the words 'owner' or 'original owner' or 'ownership' or 'OO', then I'll revisit/expand on what I said above. As far as I know it applies to sellers and buyers. Divica did not sell to you. You did not buy from Divica. Therefore the policy does not apply as between you and Divica. I do not know how to make that point any more clear.

 

Sorry to post here but I'd like to say sometimes the OO cant recover the account. I made bam y0u dead back in 2003 and came back from RS recently having not played in ages and my account was locked. I've tried several times to unlock it even finding emails from 2009 with proof of membership payments - also recovering from same location I made the account but nothing is working..
Snaggy - easy screenshots

 

Recovered acc again, returned to Zac

 

Sounds good. Thanks Divica!

 

can be closed, lol

 

thanks @Zac