Quote:
Originally Posted by walkmyline
Eddie so ur saying a guy with 70k in escrow for super bowl squares. Owes everyone the 70k right now. So ir saying if this was a bank of america transfer from buyer to seller. And the us govt anti terrorism division froze BOTH accounts because they did not approve of the tranafer. That the seller owes the buyer 10k or action? The money you paid with is worthless. It would be worthless today sitting in your account same as it is in the horses account. By your logic everyone who reserved a piece but has to cancel due to all there money being tied up owes the horses the amount of there reserved piece. They shouldnt of kept there investing money online. It just doesnt make sense. So say enough people back out of your package who havent sent yet, you as horse now have to cancel package. The horse now what? Sends guy who already sent a check? Essentialllu cashing out for him money which would of been frozen in his account if he did not ship online yet? Again makes no sense. Hope all can stop bickering on here and listen to everyones opinions. And hope everyone can deal with there unique situations like respectable adults. On iphone sure spelling grammar is horrible
Escrow deals are completely seperate and open an entirely different set of discussions.
Reserves have nothing to do with this as well. I actually hate the reserve system and had been vocal about it recently on the baords because it actually bides you to nothing and is a system set up to fail, so of course you can cancell - people do it all the time here.
Why are you assuming that I would have that money remain in my poker account if I hadn't made an investment deal when sending it to another player? Why is that money my responsability when I gave posession of it to another person? At what point does ownership and responsability for that money transfer if not when I give it to him? The only reason this is not making sense to everyone is because people were taking on huge risks when selling packages for an extreme amount of money that they were really not ready to be responsible for. Just because one of the high risk / low probability scenerios has occured doesn't mean they get to skirt that repsonsability.
As for your banking example, that also has no merit. When the money is transferred it obviously becomes the person who is in posession's responsability. If you choose to keep that money in your poker account, that is your choice. If you choose to put it in the bank, that is your choice. WIth each of these choices comes a set of risks. Could your bank be shut down? Yes. If I give you cash and the next day you deposit it in your bank, which is shut down, is that still my money at risk? No. Will you most likely get the money back anyway because of FDIC insurance? Yes. Are your poker accounts FDIC insured? No. Is it your choice to accept money via online transfer to your poker account when you know that in no way is that money insured? Yes. Do you assume responsability for those funds when they are transferred to you? Yes.