Quote:
If, on the other hand, they act with notice of the price at which you are making the object available for exchange, they must abide by your terms if they deprive you of it.
Isn't the fact that they've stolen it an explicit rejection of your terms?
I've done another read of the wkipedia article on this. I think it would be an interesting argument in a court where a thief is arguing that he stole, and the victim is arguing it was the acceptance of a contract where the thief didn't pay.
However, here is a key point from Wikipedia, which is a quote from what appears to be an important legal case
Quote:
That decision described "an agreement 'implied in fact'" as "founded upon a meeting of minds, which, although not embodied in an express contract, is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding."
I think that by showing up
after a discussion took place (even though no explicit disagreement took place) and removing the item when the owner wasn't around doesn't meet this standard. Again, this appears to be an explicit rejection of the terms offered.
It would be awesome if a lawyer could actually clear this up. But from my view, the common sense result here is that the value is set by an arbitrator/judge, and not at the whims of the guy who had it stolen - even if his whims came pre-theft. This is based purely on the fact that the goal of a judge is to come to a fair decision for all parties.
ETA: The key point in the quote is "in light of surrounding circumstances" imo. The situation you described is clearly theft with the surrounding circumstances. If the seller offered the item and the person picked it up and walked away without comment, you
may have a case,
but, I think even then it seems more like theft than agreement, and for a transaction of that size, this sort of contract may be considered invalid.