If they weren’t willing to pay it they wouldn’t have. They didn’t care enough to check. If gold was that important to them they wouldn’t be on auto pilot when at the ah. So.
2 Likes
Bragging doesn’t make it a scam. Just means he couldn’t believe someone actually bought it. I’d also be surprised if someone was willing to pay $10k for a used piece of my clothing, though I’m not an eGirl or something, so maybe that’s normal. But certainly not at a yardsale. I’d brag to my friends if someone bought something like that from me.
Okay, so by that logic, it’s not a “scam” if someone is tricked into buying gift cards, because the website says “confirm order”? Sorry, but your definition of a scam is not accurate
1 Like
Taking advantage of stupid people is part of capitalism.
Taking advantage of old people is a felony.
See the difference?
No, I don’t see the difference. Because age or mental capacity doesn’t matter in either case. In both cases, the individual being scammed is in a rushed or tired state and can’t think clearly. Scams exploit this common human behavior in order to make money. It doesn’t matter if that money is USD or wow gold, it’s still a scam.
1 Like
Do the gift cards provide said value that they advertised?
1 Like
Then they should not be making purchases till they are in a state where they can think clearly…
1 Like
You don’t really need intent to prove a scam. It isn’t an intentional tort and it isn’t a crime so “scam” is just as easily defined by statute. In this case, I don’t think there is any scam given how the AH is setup.
Is it scummy? Yes.
Is it a scam, actionable in Court? Probably not. Banner ads and other clickables that look like they’re part of the website have been around a long time and would most likely be viewed no differently than check-out aisle products like candy bars and soda: they are there to induce more purchases but everyone sees them, everyone is aware of them, and savvy buyers would not just plow ahead after clicking the wrong thing. It isn’t like you suddenly auto-purchase loads of extra goods unknown to the purchaser… assuming they read anything at all.
Unless the seller put them in this state, this is entirely the fault of the purchaser and avails you nothing. This is one of my favorite cases that discuss this kind of matter:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lucy_v._Zehmer
The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party. Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, § 71, p. 74.
Lucy was there and he could see that he was “pretty high.” He said to Lucy, “Boy, you got some good liquor, drinking, ain’t you?” Lucy then offered him a drink. "I was already high as a Georgia pine, and didn’t have any more better sense than to pour another great big slug out and gulp it down, and he took one too."
The case is rather infamous because ol’ Lucy convinced a rather drunk Zehmer to sell property at a cheap price and the Court upheld it since simply being drunk isn’t enough to invalidate a contract. The same goes for not being an adult, unequal bargaining power, etc, etc.
4 Likes
Is this a real thing a real human being actually thought and typed out?
But that IS EXACTLY WHAT’S HAPPENING HERE.
Buyer never intended to buy that quantity of goods at that price. They were “scammed” into making a purchase they didn’t intend to make. That is in no way even remotely similar to “they put food in the path of people who are probably hungry”
This is like super basic stuff. I still can’t decide whether yall are disingenuous or actually crazy
You guys would have been quality entertainment in diablo 2 back in the day wooooo.
2 Likes
Sorry bro but you’re just wrong. Being intoxicated absolutely is grounds to invalidate a contract
Its not even remotely, even in the same ballpark as the same thing.
And given that it’s “one of your favorite cases” one would have thought you’d have read it.
There is PLENTY of precedent for a contract being invalidated because one party was impaired. That was not what this case hinged on as the evidence showed Zensky was not actually impaired, despite his claim.
Your quote from the “law of contracts” is what the case was actually decided on, but you’re misinterpreting its meaning. Its not referring to “mental impairment,” but imtent. Zensk’y claimed “he was only jesting” so the contract should be void. But that “undisclosed intention” to jest was immaterial because that intent was not known to both parties, and in fact Lucy’s actions afterwards strongly indicated that they believed it to be a valid contract.
TLDR: That case doesnt mean remotely what you think it means. Mental impairment is absolutely a valid reason to void a contract.
But that’s also exactly different from those banner ads. The AH has no such deception or obfuscation. You see two prices and two purchase options at most, in the same location, every time, unless you have personally installed an addon that alters the look or function of the AH.
Every situation of consumer protection statutes coming to bear must consider the situation of the purchase. The AH is dramatically different from both the grocery store check-out aisle and deceptive banner ads, which is why analogizing to them is pretty poor.
- The check-out aisle attempts to influence last-minute purchase decisions because sweets and snacks at “cheap” prices seem like no big deal and you’re stuck waiting anyway. It absolutely “preys” upon boredom and hunger but isn’t fraudulent since you don’t have to buy any of it.
- The banner ads lead you to other locations to make other purchases. People do click through websites without reading almost anything but that avails you nothing when people make the same excuse about breezing through contracts they sign.
- The AH has a rigid system in place of bidding and buying out. That most people just look for buyouts and make decisions on buyout pricing means someone not looking at the buyout price when clicking that button is entirely their own fault. Most people probably outright ignore the bid price and would testify to the same. No one hid the price. No one deceived the individual as to what they were getting and for how much.
In every case above there is some sort of manipulation happening, subtle as some of it may be, but it is happening. However, you are expected to recognize that kind of manipulation when you make that kind of purchase. You will be offered too high of a price when buying a car. You will be offered extraneous deals/warranties/extras that drive up the cost that you didn’t intend to get when going to most retail stores. You will be pressured to sign up for rewards and other nonsense, at a price.
Taking a moment to say “no” is expected.
I have read it, and the guy’s mental state or later testimony that he was A - drunk and B - kidding, didn’t actually kill off the contract.
Yes, but it isn’t an automatic defeater.
You’re missing the larger point: the alcohol and presence of drinking were offered to show the jest and unseriousness of the discussion of the sale. The Court steamrolled right over the alcohol problem entirely.
They disclose some drinking by the two parties but not to an extent that they were unable to understand fully what they were doing. There was no fraud, no misrepresentation, no sharp practice and no dealing between unequal parties.
In direct response to Lagspike’s point above:
Being rushed or tired or any other emotional or semi-compromised state isn’t a defeater to contracts or other agreements. The argument about AH “scamming” ultimately rests on it being a “scam” to those too lazy and too hasty in their purchases to actually assess what they’re purchasing before doing so, ABSENT ANY KIND OF HARASSMENT, NEED FOR SPEED, PRESSING INFLUENCE FROM ANOTHER, ETC.
2 Likes
This is honestly why I have a bank alt I send gold to, and it only has money to buy what I know I’ll need. Scammers are trash, but if I accidentally click something that’s up for 900g buyout, whoops, you’ve caught me on my bank alt and I don’t have that money there anyway.
B was the only relevant issue
Because it determined he was not actually impaired. That’s not the same thing as deciding his impairment didn’t matter which is what you seem to be alleging.
Try Johnson V Harmon. Plenty of precedent out there for invalidating contracts because a party was intoxicated. The only reason they are overturned is when, as in Lucy vs Zehmer, it is determined that one party was not actually so intoxicated that they should not have known what they were agreeing to.
If she wants to quit over something that SHE DID then good riddance. Let her act like a child. Let her take her ball and go home.
If two people are selling the exact same car and have the prices clearly marked, and you buy the 300% marked up car… that’s not on the seller, that’s on you. You purchased that car with the price fully visible. It’s called a free market.
4 Likes
You dont know the seller’s intent. The op’s friend is a fool who isnt responsible enough to accept the results of her poor decisions. The prices were literally written out for her
“Ignorance, inexperience, or even habitual intemperance of one of the contracting parties may be a ground for denying a decree for specific performance, where it is sufficient to cast a suspicion on the fairness of the transaction.”
“The rule generally recognized at the present time is, that the intoxication of a party which will invalidate a contract entered into by him must be such as to render him incapable of knowing what he is doing, or to deprive him of the powers of reasoning and understanding to such an extent that he fails entirely to comprehend the consequence of his acts.”
Both are relevant, as alcohol in sufficient amounts could defeat the formation of a valid contract, and would be apparent to someone on the other side of the bargaining table. The key takeaways from this case, which is taught very early in 1L Contract law, is that offer, acceptance, and consideration are all you need for a valid agreement and that being “high as a Georgia Pine” or hiding the fact that you are supposedly joking don’t stop these.
His impairment, such that it was, was not sufficient to render a contract made invalid. The Court didn’t deny alcohol was involved and didn’t deny the testimony that people involved were drunk. The reason this case is remembered more for the alcohol than the whispered “it is all a joke” portion is because it doesn’t take a case to demonstrate to most people that hiding intentions isn’t going to end well for you when making a contract, but claiming “BUT I WAS DRUNK” seems fair game.
This case shows you have to prove MORE than just drunkenness.
Oof…
Imbecility of mind is not of itself sufficient to set aside a contract, when there is not an essential privation of the reasoning faculties or an incapacity of understanding and acting with discretion in the ordinary affairs of life.
This quote here agrees with the Lucy decision in part:
Formerly, it was considered that intoxication was no excuse for the non-fulfilment of a pecuniary liability, and that it constituted no sufficient plea in avoidance of a contract; but it is now settled, says Chancellor Kent, according to the dictate of good sense and common justice, that a contract made by a person so destitute of reason as not to know the consequences of his contract, though his incompetency be produced by intoxication, is at least void. 2 Kent, Com. (12th ed.) 451.
It isn’t intoxication that kills the contract, but intoxication to the point where you are rendered “destitute of reason [so] as not to know the consequences of [your] contract.”
However, the Lucy court goes further to argue it is important that the OTHER SIDE be aware of your lack of reason as well:
Not only did Lucy actually believe, but the evidence shows he was warranted in believing, that the contract represented a serious business transaction and a good faith sale and purchase of the farm.
You can’t have a meeting of the minds if one side has good reason to think you have no mind about you at all.
None of that is present in the AH matter, at best you can argue someone is tired or rushed, but neither of these are excuses that work.
EDIT: Also note that Johnson v. Harmon 94 U.S. 371 (1876) is quite a bit outdated.
1 Like