Quote:
Originally Posted by zan nen
Strawn just stop please lol.
lol
Quote:
Proportionality centers on the concept of making the victim whole. He had a comic book, not $500,000.
He had a $500,000 comic book. Says who? The only person who can put a price on it: the owner, in this case by a public offer of sale before the fact.
Who has the authority to tell an owner he should part with his property for less than his asking price?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan
Can you go ahead and make an actual case about how this could ever possibly be considered an implied-in-fact contract as opposed to straight forward theft?
Possibly it's both. In any case, the only legitimate way to obtain property offered for sale is by paying the owner's asking price. The thief cannot simply revise down the price of a publicly offered exchange to market value by stealing the object, and then upon capture have his lower price honored in a court that upholds the right of voluntary exchange.
Quote:
What sort of interpretation needs to be given here to meet that standard? What rational person considers leaving and coming back to take an item without communicating intent to be a contract as opposed to theft?
Again, it could be both theft and contract implied-in-fact. Once the thief has been duly noticed of the terms under which the legitimate owner is willing to part with his property, the thief cannot unilaterally change those terms and transfer the property to himself at a lower price.