I don't see what choice he had. Why take a chance on Zachary not sending anything given the attitude he was showing (in terms of not being up for discussion)? I would probably have done the same thing.

Zach's extenuating circumstances were nothing to do with the deal. Tomas's circumstances involved Zach using Tomas's money to get him to agree to something he didn't want to because of a threat.

kartinken

This discussion is going nowhere, how about I propose something. You clearly think Zach's in the right here not paying now, and clearly think witch hunt/deciding things in the court of public opinion is a bad thing.

So agree to arbitration, not on what Zach should have done before, but on what he should do now. If unbiased people hear both sides and decide that Zach owes nothing, he owes nothing. I'm assuming this would be ok with Tomas.

Now to make it worth your while, I'll side bet you another 4k that the arbitration sides with Tomas. So basically both you and me escrow 4k, Zach or someone else on his behalf escrows 4k, and then based on the result of the judgement, either Zach or Tomas gets 4k, and you or me gets 8k. Is this an agreeable proposition? Note that this would be based on what Zach should do NOW, not what he should have done before. So if unbiased people decide that Zach should have paid before but that because Tomas agreed or because he made this post he no longer owes Tomas a dime, he would get to keep the 4k and you would get the 8k we had escrowed.

pm me if this is agreeable to you, otherwise you are simply wasting everybody's time and trying to save Zach's reputation even though you clearly believe that morally he should pay Tomas the 4k right now regardless of everything that has happened.

kartinken, you have basically created a scenario where Tomas was only entitled to his money if:

1. Zach did not have any circumstances that would make it difficult to pay it back
2. Tomas worked through you (or one of Zach's other friends) as an arbitrator
3. Tomas did not seek out any public help/advice even after the scammer cut off contact with him.

sounds fair. let me ask you one other questions, if Tomas didn't say anything, do you think Zach would have sent him the 4k on his own at some point in the future?

I think there were not very difficult roads to getting Tomas paid eventually. That's why I think this draconian tactic is out of line. There is not a single doubt in my mind that Tomas would have eventually seen money had he not posted this.

I'm not here as an agent for Zach, so I can't speak to the arbitration question.

If Zach agreed to it would you agree?

why are we even reasoning with a f*cking ******, if he still doesn't get it, he will never get it.

I will let the Zach posters that are going up around his workplace do the talking.

I'm not sure what agreement you need from me? What am I agreeing to?

What's your relationship to OP?

Thank you, Dougl for your post. You got it right.

As you can read in the conversation, I never agreed on the price of 12k. I agreed that its ok, that he start sending me the money.

Nahh12 I believe that you are are trolling and just joking.

Zachvac I was suggesting arbitration and getting third parties to this from the start.

And the language: Theft, scam, breach of contract for financial benefit its all pretty much the same.

And kartinken if you are the friend advising Zach on this situation, that its clear why he is so misguided about the whole thing. You have no critical thinking whatsoever.

a side bet on the results.

I'm one of *very* few in this thread thinking critically. When Zach told me a small amount about it my advice was "It sounds like there was a miscommunication, I hope you can work it out." No more advice came til this thread was posted and you volunteered to give up your money. If you don't understand why posting this forfeits your money, you, like your rabid dogs, have no critical thinking skills.

I wouldn't criticize Zach for taking this issue to arbitration, but he would definitely be doing it as an undeserved favor to you.

Posting this is so much more wrong than Zach holding some of the money longer than you expected, it's not remotely comparable.

Is this real life?

How can everyone here be intelligent enough to read 2plus2 and stupid enough to not understand this situation. Two people had a miscommunication. One player sees it as a scam. I have never met a scammer who with all the money in hand sends 75% back when he could keep it all. I have been scammed a few times and i wish that was how it worked for me. So it seems the term scammer was used wrongly. How much is that worth? It seems at this point the label scammer has damaged one player. I'm not sure how much that damage is worth but it doesn't seem practical to sue for more than the 4k already in hand (for the same reasons it wasn't practical for OP to sue).

I'm seeing if you are simply trolling and trying to defend your friend's rep knowing he's in the wrong or if you truly believe he is in the right. Your refusal to put your money where your mouth is confirms what everyone in this thread thought all along. Sorry I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Even after Zach used the "non-negotiable" terminology and blocked communication from him, you still think Tomas was more wrong?

If Tomas didn't do anything, he would never have seen another dime. Look at the backtracking your friend is doing. Citing mental illness as a term for why he can't be held to a contract, bringing up tax conversations there are no records of, etc.

These are all behaviors that are consistent with scammers.

I hope Zach gives you a portion of the 4K he stole for your efforts.

So just so I understand you correctly, if a bank loans a business money, and then later the business says I will give you some of your money and we will call it good only if you accept. You will never receive all of it but we will consider it all square. The bank wants them to pay the full amount or will get a civil judgement on the business, then the business pays the amount that they offered and says tough luck, and the bank then takes them to court to get a civil judgement. You believe that society should just say well, they got some of their money back they should be grateful, and now that they have ruined their reputation with a civil suit that should be good enough, everything all settled.

Or do you think that the bank should be allowed to get a civil judgement against the business and the business forced to pay that judgement as they can?

I didn't realize that a false allegation (even though that's not what it was, the op contained all the facts and allowed Zach to respond) was grounds for money. In the real world if I am sued for theft and it's found I was not guilty can I then steal money from the person accusing me because my reputation was tarnished because people see in the public court records that I was tried for theft? Because that seems an awful lot like what you're advocating.

Again if anyone actually thinks Zach is in the right, please convince him to agree to arbitration. This will include discussion on whether this thread is grounds for Zach keeping the money as well as discussion on whether Tomas agreeing to only get 12k constitutes grounds for him not getting the rest. To make it worth your while I have offered to side bet.

+1. Either he's trolling or he is like the dumbest *** ever

I call and order 16 pizzas and pay with my credit card. When the driver arrives I only receive 12 pizzas, after paying for 16. Would this be anything less than a scam because I still received SOME pizza?

you know how i know you are fat? lol

It seems obvious that english is not the 1st language of anyone posting here. Scam-a dishonest scheme; a fraud. Calling an honest mistake a dishonest scheme is not the same in the english language. Please no more responses from zachvac as i can't figure out why you make no sense since you seem to grasp the english language.

This whole thing reminds me of Jesus, when he told the parable of the four loaves.

The Samaritan had been walking through the desert for 40 days, and lo, he was hungry.
He came upon a baker who was crying. His bakery had burned to the ground in a freak grease fire. All he could salvage was 4 loaves. The baker pleaded with the Samaritan. 'Please by my loaves so I may rebuild my bakery. I shall give you the offer of two for the price of one.'
The Samaritan took pity on the baker and paid him for the loaves. But the baker only gave the Samaritan three of the loaves and he ate the last one himself.
'But baker', said the Samaritan, 'You owe me a loaf'.
The baker didst poop on his own hand and rub it in the face of the Samaritan.
'There's your loaf'.

It isn't miscommunication just because one party claims it was when the time comes to transfer owed money.
The label you are talking about would disappear if the money was paid back if it isn't paid back it's going to stick. Exactly as it should be.
You can't possibly make judgements of how much labeling someone a scamer is worth and take those money from a person. It's like saying I don't like your behavior and stealing 2k from you for that and call it justified.
You can't possibly be dumb enough to actually believe it's in any way justified so I am going to assume you are trolling this thread to make it appear as there is real discussion about the issue from OP. There isn't.

Posting it is of positive value actually and shorting someone isn't. If Zach owns up to his debt the thread will be remembered as someone having temporary clouded judgement in high stress situation but then coming back to his senses. If not it will be remembered as documentation of scamming OP for 4k USD.

Or those were the relevant numbers from the OP....