Stupidity does not equal scam. How many other reasonably intelligent people were able to avoid the “scam?”
1 Like
What happens when you breach a contract?
Ah, thanks for the clarification
Weird, must be a local thing but yea thats essentially just off-premise
Simply establishing that bars do share some responsibility because the consumption of alcohol can potentially lead to serious impairment.
The 3rd party test is actually what most cases are decided on. If a third party would reasonably determine that you were too drunk to sign a contract, that would be grounds to void. If you had actual witnesses testifying to the opposite, that would pretty clearly swing the case the other direction
user error is not a scam
1 Like
That’s exactly the quality of argument I’d expect from someone named “Urdaddy.” You can apply that logic to literally any scam. “Well if you were smarter, you wouldn’t have fallen for it.”
“Old people are sooo dumb. Who would really think the FBI would call your house to demand payment in Best Buy gift cards??? Clearly not a scam!!”
Complete garbage take
1 Like
If you’re deliberately looking to engineer user error for the express purpose of profiting off said error… that’s pretty clearly a scam by any definition
2 Likes
bid & buy out are 2 different things. user fault end of story
1 Like
There is too much to quote from when I was last here (6 new quotes alone), but I will just say this.
You guys trying to defend scammers by proving the legality of it are missing the point. It doesn’t matter if a scam is legal or illegal…the point is its DISHONEST and trying to TRICK people. That’s the only definition of a scam that matters here.
1 Like
Pretty much all scams depend on some level of “user fault.” That doesn’t make it any less a scam…
1 Like
Look, I hate scammers in the AH as much as the next guy, but it’s really hard to feel sorry for someone who makes this sort of mistake. Quit smashing the buy button like a buffoon and pay attention to what you’re doing.
LOL, you should try EVE Online for a scamming free experience. Jita local is waiting.
First, don’t compare sexual assault to contract law. They aren’t even the same ballpark and consent in an intimacy context has literally nothing to do with consent in a contractual context. Further, you can be drunk and still not commit sexual assault, there are plenty of cases to that effect exactly, notably when both parties are drunk, but the standard is very different than contract law. You can’t make legal contracts involving sex.
Second, from your own link:
Proving intoxication created impairment
Once a court finds that the an otherwise valid contract was entered into during the time frame in which one of the parties claims to have been intoxicated, the party who alleges intoxication must demonstrate to the court reasons the contract should not be enforced. Typically, the party must show that his or her intoxication was severe enough to create impairment. The party would then argue that the intoxication-induced impairment caused him or her to lack the required capacity to enter into a legally-binding contract. If the court finds that the intoxicated party lacked capacity, the judge may rule the contract voidable, meaning the intoxicated party may avoid the contract if he or she chooses to do so.
See the bolded section. Proving intoxication is insufficient in this particular jurisdiction (in this case Florida), you have to prove the intoxication led to what is listed above.
This is entirely consistent with everything I’ve said so far on this very topic. Being drunk without explaining and proving how being drunk rendered you unable to enter into a contract won’t invalidate the contract.
…that’s not what I meant. Once your blood alcohol level hits an arbitrary threshold, you’re considered intoxicated for purposes of prohibited operation of a motor vehicle, heavy equipment, etc. This has been used in CONTRACT cases to prove “drunk, therefore no contract” which fails on its face because simply being over the legal limit means jack all in such a setting.
Disliking the state of contract law in the US doesn’t make it a garbage take. People often feel scammed and wish things were clearer or better for their sake, but the law doesn’t protect people from their own stupidity.
Bid and Buyout are distinct and different and every person using the AH knows this. There is no dishonesty, there is no trick, only user error.
3 Likes
I think you’re losing the plot a little at this point lol. The law very clearly does protect people “from their own stupidity.” That exactly why we have laws criminalizing various forms of fraud
Psst.
PSSST!
All scams rely on “user error.” They wouldnt be scams if they didn’t involve being dishonest and tricking people
1 Like
Guys the people posting these large buyout prices are just “human erorrs” when posting. They never ment to trick or misslead anyone into hitting the buyout.
Please stop hurting the poor souls that make an error when posting…they are not scammers, they are human like you and I
That is exactly what reformed laws have done.
The comparison between rape law and contract law suggests a possible reform of the force standard in rape law. The new standard, based on contract measures, would provide a new definition of rape that forbids non-physical coercion and at the same time is neither over- nor under-inclusive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293558699_A_Contract_Reading_of_Rape_Law_Redefining_Force_to_Include_Coercion
And to reiterate what you just posted:
Typically, the party must show that his or her intoxication was severe enough to create impairment.
One can have a glass of wine, and one can be drunk.
drunk
adjective
- affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behavior.
In highly limited forms in which actual lies, deceit, coercion, etc, actually exist.
You can’t honestly lump actual fraud or price gouging during a hurricane with what is happening here on the AH.
A - No, many scams don’t rely upon any user error, they just flat out lie or cheat you out of what you agreed to.
B - Existence of user error creating problems doesn’t mean it is a scam. Mere error on the part of the buyer is insufficient unless you can show the error was forced or induced by some other behavior that is deceitful, fraudulent, illegal, coercive, etc.
That’s what attempts at reforming sexual assault laws have tried, and they’ve been soundly rejected because intimacy isn’t a damned contract. What you just posted isn’t a law, or even a suggested bill, it is a law review article. Law review articles are written by law students and law professors (99% of the time) as op-eds about some niche area of law and some new or interesting development or suggestion. I wrote one my 3L year about trade secrets and takings jurisprudence, and my suggestion in that piece is about as longshot as longshots get, but it made my professors really happy so easy A.
Any attempt to shoehorn contract law into criminal liabilities regarding sexual activity is doomed to fail because inherent to contract law is a compulsory duty to perform. Sexual acts cannot be put into a contract, they are prima facie illegal, precisely because a valid and enforceable contract would mean you can demand performance. Every year when all the fresh faced law students take Contract Law, the students read about how being drunk doesn’t automatically invalidate a contract, and every year someone asks about consent in terms of sexual assault, and every year that professor has to patiently explain how the two are entirely unrelated.
Drunk is synonymous with intoxicated, but has no bearing on the LEGAL standards.
You can sit down at a bar with a friend, have 3-4 drinks together and SIMULTANEOUSLY you:
- CANNOT legally drive or operate a motor vehicle;
- CANNOT consent to sex with your friend; and
- CAN agree to an enforceable contract to sell your prized car to your friend for an insanely low price
The fact alcohol exists in your system has literally no legal weight.
For driving, we check your BAC, and if you’re over it, that’s that, you get a DUI, and it is statutory (made by statute) with no defenses.
For sex, we have a very fuzzy analysis that is inconsistent across jurisdictions as to whether you and the person you were with knew or had reason to know you may not be entirely about your wits. In some cases, even one drink is enough to deny consent, in other cases, both parties can be blindingly drunk and consent is still present.
For contracts, we have decidedly less fuzzy analysis as to whether a “meeting of the minds” exists at the time the contract was made. This means not only your state of mind, but how the other party PERCEIVED your state of mind. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN BE DRUNK, BUY THINGS ONLINE OR AGREE TO VARIOUS EXPRESS CONTRACTS AND BE HELD LIABLE FOR ALL OF THEM.
3 Likes
What about giving consent? Suddenly it’s a double standard?
See above.