Consent was unanimous. Now the seller is waiting for the megabuck check.

In ACland, there is no way for someone to legitimately take possession of another's property except according to the terms under which the item is offered in exchange. No third party, like a private court, has the authority to overrule the conditions the seller has established by substituting its own. Therefore, the act of voluntarily taking said property constitutes legal constructive assent to the seller's price since that is the only recognized manner for the transfer to go forward, a fact the thief is responsible for both knowing and abiding by, in addition to the laws against theft.

And yet, you can ILLEGITIMATELY obtain it, like when you STEAL it.

Sure, but stealing an item does not magically exempt you from the terms of its exchange, which a judge is going to hold you to. He has no other choice under the law, since the conditions of transfer established by the seller are the only legitimate ones that could possibly apply in ACland.

No, that's not what you said. You said the "seller" WANTED the "thief" to take it. Not "take it and send a big check later."

No fair AC court would award someone something ridiculous just because he claimed it was part of the terms of exchange. I really can't believe this is your problem, as this isn't even an issue between AC vs. today's courts.

Especially since there would be absolute evidence of what a victim really thought something was worth - ie what it was insured for.

The "send a big check later" part was in the public offer of sale.

Fair to whom? Certainly not the seller who, despite having declared the terms under which he was willing to part with the missing item, has yet to receive his offering price. Now he hears a supposed AC judge overrule him and tell the guy who took his property not to worry about it and pay a lower figure instead. Doesn't feel very voluntary all of a sudden.

On what legal basis can a court in ACland overrule the terms declared by a property owner for the transfer of his property?

If the thief didn't like the voluntary exchange terms I had set for my lawn chair, he needed to take me to court before he absconded with my property and try to get a ruling that required me to revise down my asking price. If he takes the item first and then, when I demand the payment I set as a condition of my voluntary exchange of my property, decides my megabuck asking price was too high, it's too late, and a legitimate AC judge can't help him. The thief (and buyer) owes me my megabucks.

Strawn - your continued misunderstanding of AC legal theory does not make you right, no matter how many dozens of times you post it.

On what legal basis does an AC court decide it is "fair" to revise downward an asking price publicly declared before-the-fact by the seller of property now taken and unrecoverable?

What principle of AC allows the court to do this?

AC legal theory? I don't think you need to specify...

The specific principle is common sense. You have been told this like 50 times. If you have something that you value far more than it's market value that also has a market value high enough so that someone would want to steal it you need to do a good job of protecting/defending that item.

Lol. So the "common sense" of the judge overrides the property rights of the seller?

So the burden is on the victim if he choses to price his property above market value, and once the thief gets hold of the property he can keep it for the lesser price?

No, the "seller" still "owns" the item, even though they have been dispossessed of it. We are talking about trying to figure out what fair compensation for the item is in the event that it can't be put back into the possession of it's rightful owner. "Fair compensation" should certainly be above the market value, but it is not whatever the "seller" states the value to be.

No, he can't keep it. If he still has the item he has to give it back to it's rightful owner + pay some further compensation (for the time that the rightful owner spent dispossessed of their item + "terror premium" or whatever)

I don't know what you mean by burden is on the victim, but the burden of protecting one's possessions from theft is certainly on oneself.

No, the seller does not own the item. It was taken and then lost.

What AC definition of "ownership" are you using?

The seller made a public offer of sale. The thief voluntarily took all the necessary steps required to accept the offer. The thief could not legitimately acquire the property any other way than by accepting the offer. The thief is responsible for taking legitimate actions only, and "I broke the law" is no excuse.

So the thief didn't do what the seller wanted, then. You need to get your story straight before we can have this discussion IMO.

I think you are confused about the concepts of ownership and possession.

The thief did do what the seller wanted, by taking the item offered for sale. Same as when you go to Denny's and order a hamburger and fries.

Now the thief, committed by his act of constructive assent to the sale, owes the asking price for what he voluntarily accepted. Just like you still owe the bill even after you dine-and-ditch at Denny's.

What AC definition of "ownership" are you using?

"Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property"

...

I should have read that closer imo:

The state of having complete legal control of the status of something.

legal right of possession; proprietorship.

To legally own something you don't have to currently posses it. If I lend you my car I still legally own it. If I go on vacation I still legally own my house. If you steal my car I legally still own it, you have just wrongfully possessed it. If it is found I can rightfully take possession of it back, your stealing it did not give you legal ownership of it (as you are claiming it does). Whether or not I considered the car to be "for sale" does not change that in any way.

First, the theft as such is not what transferred ownership. It was the voluntary acceptance of the item under an offer of sale, the only legitimate interpretation of which action is a purchase (and of course the thief is responsible for always acting legitimately).

Second, the item is unrecoverable, so the right of possession cannot be exercised, which means the thief has effectively deprived the seller of ownership.

It does if the transfer was voluntary by both parties under public notice of an offer of sale. What other elements of voluntary exchange could be required?

Where did he agree to the seller's terms?

The seller wanted him to BUY the item not TAKE the item.

Again, what does this have to do with voluntarism?

You STILL haven't presented any aspect of this case that presents a challenge unique to a voluntary dispute resolution system.

Wrong. Theft = dispossessing from the legal owner. Unless both the thief and the would-be seller can agree to terms of an exchange, the "seller" still owns the item.

That may be, but the "seller" still legally owns the item.

In this case, the voluntary transfer of capital from the "thief" to the "seller."