He wanted him to do both, just like at Denny's. (See below.)

They did agree. The seller made a public offer: "Take this lawn chair, mail me a check in 30 days." Those were the seller's conditions. His explicit expectation was that whoever took the lawn chair would mail him a megabuck check thereafter. Under voluntary exchange, he is entitled to impose those terms. The thief, in voluntarily taking possession of the lawn chair, gave constructive assent to the seller's terms in the eyes of the law, because there is no other way he could legitimately do what he did.

Now the party who voluntarily accepted the property under an offer of sale is found by the seller and says, "Actually, since you were asking such an unreasonably large multiple of market value for your lawn chair, I have decided to construe my acceptance of it as theft rather than a purchase. Since I no longer have said item anyway, let's just save ourselves the trouble of going to court and having a judge rule that I owe you its market value (plus a few penalties) by you accepting this generous check for 3 times the market value of the lawn chair."

First, did the thief say "ok, i accept those terms?" Can you prove it?

Your example doesn't fit the terms of an implied-in-fact contract because there is no expected payment in the case of theft. That is why we are calling one of them "thief."

Second, I find it difficult to believe that you could find a company to insure implied-in-fact contracts on retail sales. If you did, and you could prove that an implied-in-fact contract was created and that one side broke that contract, then yes, they could be held responsible for holding up their end of the contract. The problem is, that is exceedingly difficult to prove and in the case of theft no such contract exists.

If you were insured against theft and we are construing this as a case of theft, that is, the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, then we get right back to the whole market value++ compensation thing.

I can't believe you are serious at this point.

I say we let the thread die.

OK, he wanted the "buyer" to do both. Wanting doesn't make it so.

Uh yea, thats why his taking would be considered illegitimate.

The thief could not do otherwise than accept the terms by taking the property, because the seller's terms have the force of law. By taking the property, the thief gave legally binding constructive assent to the terms, without words.

The seller expected payment from whoever voluntarily took the item. Again, the seller's expectations have the force of law (especially where voluntary exchange is the controlling paradigm).

More later.

ok fine you're right strawn.

Do you play poker with people who agree to play for table stakes, except when they loose they grab handfulls of money and run? Are people like this welcome to your home game? If so, can I have your address? If not, can you see how the position your putting forward is hyppocritical?

If you support the state then this statement of yours is in fact truthful. Congratulations. And thanks for being honest with us about your nature and your activities.

I hear customs and border enforcement is hiring.
They even give you free guns to shoot people with too.

It's not really the same though. They capture people and put them in a hotel that they stole from some poor schmoe via some scheme called 'eminent domain' and they collect a lot more than $40/day per person from a bunch of people against their will under threat of death who have done nothing wrong.

You'll probably be happy to learn that the people they capture don't have to work though......

Yeah, there are bad people in this world.

Which does not excuse him from the legitimate terms of the offer. It should be obvious why any legal system would have to work like that.

Have you explained how the circumstances of this meet the requirement of an implied-in-fact contract? Considering he took it without the owners knowledge, and earlier left, which would imply that he was not interested in accepting the deal.

what? who? eh?

He thinks that the theft of any item being offered for sale constitutes an implied-in-fact contract I think, based on his reply to my last post.

The thief gave constructive assent to the terms of sale by taking possession of the item under notice of the offer to sell, thereby knowingly and voluntarily meeting the seller's expectations of the sale (i.e. removal of the lawn chair with a megabuck price tag on it). Since this is the only legally recognized way for the thief to have acquired the item, he is answerable for the conditions imposed by the seller. Any court overruling the seller's price by substituting its own violates the right to voluntary exchange.

The seller made a general offer through public notice. Any buyer satisfies his expectation, even someone who earlier seem uninterested.

Without freedom-hating government imposing its regulatory power on voluntary exchange, absolutely.

We obviously envision living in different AC lands. In your AC land, if I am your neighbor and you have a security firm that will act as a government and apprehend people against their wills then I will shoot you in the head. IMO your talking about government, not voluntary society.

Good luck finding an insurance company that agrees with you.

Next time you decide to make a stupid hypothetical built on your AC parody, can you tell me up front so I don't waste any time thinking you want to have an honest discussion?

BTW...

I'm still waiting for the basis on which an AC court can override the stated terms of a property owner for parting with his property.

This does NOT mean: Why is it good that an AC court can do this?

Rather, it DOES mean: How does an AC court get the power to do this?

The government steals from me without my consent. If I attempt to resist in a means that will be effective against the means they are willing to use to collect what do you think will happen? Do you think the government will send girl scouts with baskets and innocent little doe eyes asking for the money they used to steal from me but I put a stop to it?

Hint: They send men with guns.

Assuming I will not be run off my propterty, abandoning it so they can steal it from me, I am faced with the threat of DEATH if I do not comply with them.

Am I supposed to be jumping for joy because they will be so gracious as to possibly send me to the gulag if I roll over and play dead when the men with guns show up instead of immediately opening fire on me???

people grant it the power to do so realizing that it's possible they might get shortchanged a bit but protect themselves from the myriad problems associated with people getting to enforce the price of everything they own.

I don't need **** in my life regulated and I don't need any friggin security firm in order to be free.

Just stop hiring people to rob my ass and lets live in peace.

People who support governments are the thiefs, lets not forget that.

wat

In case it isn't obvious, its the "if you don't pay your taxes, you will be executed" rhetoric that is so annoying. The penalties for not paying tax begin with fines and end with jail time. Very disagreeable, I'm sure. You choose to shoot the taxman in the head?

Unless you resist.