You left out the MOST IMPORTANT PART. Before Bob stole the car, Dave put a sign in the window that said "I will sell you this car for one million dollars."

This changes everything because __________________.

Still waiting for someone to fill in this blank.

Strawn world:

Bob steals Dave's car.

Dave finds out.

Dave takes Bob to court where Dave discovers that the car has been chopped up already.

Dave says that he had a pricetag of a million dollars on his 94 civic.

Judge awards Dave a million dollars.

Everyone starts putting ridiculous pricetags on everything.

Nobody can drive as nobody can insure against accident when judges award billion dollar settlements to the person hit, no matter how minor.

Nobody goes to a store fearing the possibility that they will break something in the store and be liable for a trillion dollars in damages.

Everyone dies.

strawn is vindicated. AC really doesn't work

-fin

???

Lol.

"Yeah, those voluntary exchange goofballs are a laugh, ain't that right your honor?"

The judge just overruled Dave's right to exchange his property exclusively under terms of his own choosing.

if the choices are

sometimes people get shortchanged a little when they have sentimental value attached to an object that is taken from them

or

everyone gets screwed bc judges award settlements based on what you say you think it's worth and there's little to no check on lying and inflating how much you think it's worth.


i take number 1, as does everyone, which is why number 2 isn't an objection to AC

No, he just did his best to correct a situation where an involuntary exchange took place.

It does not necessarily have anything to do with sentimental value.

The seller names his price. You either accept it or walk away.

If you want there to be occasions where the owner of an item of property does not have the absolute authority to set the terms under which he will part with it, then your preference is for a de facto state.

The exchange was not involuntary. The seller offered the item to thief. The thief did just what the seller wanted him to do: take the item.

to me it's similar how ignorance of the law isn't a defense. It probably should be as it seems ****ed up that someone could be found guilty of something when they honestly didn't think they were doing anything wrong given that the legal code is enormous. Unfortunately it would be far too easy to game by lying and there's no way we could be sure that people were telling the truth when they said they didn't know they were doing something wrong. AC situations, like all other situations, have to make certain rules based on what creates best consequences, and a car thief owing you a million dollars for your busted ass jalopy is not good consequences.

Strawn, does the thief give up all rights to his own property the minute he steals a lawn chair?

my preference is for non insanity.

seller presumably wanted him to pay before taking it.

No more than if he accepts a loan under terms he can't afford.

No, "buy now pay later" is fine.

The exchange was involuntary. The seller offered the item for a price. The thief took the item for free. Since he can't give the item back (he owes the seller the item, not the price the seller offered it for) it is up to the judge to determine what fair compensation should be.

Strawn: Hey guys, in AC land are judicial bodies going to suddenly become instantly completely ******ed?

ACists: Nope.

Strawn: ANAHAHAHANNAHAJHALJKDHALKJHNAA I CANT HEAR YOU

So you're still trying to say the thief entered a contract with the seller? I disagree, lets let the courts decide.

No he didn't. The thief may have wanted to take it for free, but he did not have that power. By voluntarily taking the item under notice of the seller's offer, the thief assumed responsibility for the terms of exchange associated with the item by the seller.

The buyer/thief completed the transaction in full knowlege of the price thereof as established by the only party with absolute authority to do so in ACland: the seller.

Only the owner has the ability to set the terms under which he relinquishes possession of his property. Where do you think this is, Stateland?

Bonus Points for anybody who knows what the image is from. (But - social points ldo)

Strawn:

You have yet to make the case that this "transaction" meets the standards of the "Implied in Fact" contract, as opposed to theft. Allow me to quote the relevant passage for the third time:

1. Tell me how the surrounding circumstances of a potential buyer leaving, then returning to take an object in secret infers an agreement.

This is important to establish that this was, in fact, the exchange you claimed and not a straightforward theft.

Fortunately for the thief, Acquittals R Us will clear him of all charges.

lol A+

Its from M:TG obv, Hammer of Bogarden FTW!

Oh wait, maybe not? A different edition perhaps, b/c it looks like the same dude.

Indeed. You're such a geek.

Uh, what property is dave no longer able to exchange because o fthe judge's decision? It can't be the car, because dave doesn't HAVE the car anymore.

Then the transaction is closed and there's no liability, there is no "thief" because the item wasn't stolen, according to your stipulation. The seller, according to you, consented to the transaction.

It is the car. The ruling effects an exchange that already happened by voiding Dave's conditions of sale after the fact.