Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-05-2009, 11:30 PM   #526
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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.
Consent was unanimous. Now the seller is waiting for the megabuck check.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 11:32 PM   #527
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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.
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 11:39 PM   #528
TomVeil
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
TomVeil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere, Man
Posts: 19,374
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
And yet, you can ILLEGITIMATELY obtain it, like when you STEAL it.
TomVeil is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 11:48 PM   #529
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomVeil View Post
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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-05-2009, 11:56 PM   #530
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Consent was unanimous. Now the seller is waiting for the megabuck check.
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."
 
Old 05-06-2009, 12:44 AM   #531
tubasteve
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
tubasteve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: f*** city
Posts: 14,291
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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 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.
tubasteve is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 10:48 AM   #532
TorontoCFE
grinder
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 544
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubasteve View Post
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.
TorontoCFE is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 11:01 AM   #533
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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."
The "send a big check later" part was in the public offer of sale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubasteve View Post
No fair AC court would award someone something ridiculous just because he claimed it was part of the terms of exchange.
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 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 11:11 AM   #534
Zurvan
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Zurvan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: On the front porch, yelling at kids
Posts: 35,618
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Strawn - your continued misunderstanding of AC legal theory does not make you right, no matter how many dozens of times you post it.
Zurvan is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 12:27 PM   #535
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
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?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 12:28 PM   #536
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurvan View Post
Strawn - your continued misunderstanding of AC legal theory does not make you right, no matter how many dozens of times you post it.
AC legal theory? I don't think you need to specify...
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 12:31 PM   #537
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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 is the specific AC legal principle involved?
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.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 12:37 PM   #538
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
The specific principle is common sense.
Lol. So the "common sense" of the judge overrides the property rights of the seller?

Quote:
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.
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?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 12:44 PM   #539
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Lol. So the "common sense" of the judge overrides the property rights of the seller?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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, 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.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:02 PM   #540
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
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, 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.
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:06 PM   #541
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
The "send a big check later" part was in the public offer of sale.
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.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:17 PM   #542
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
I think you are confused about the concepts of ownership and possession.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:24 PM   #543
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by pvn View Post
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
I think you are confused about the concepts of ownership and possession.
What AC definition of "ownership" are you using?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:26 PM   #544
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

"Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property"
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:34 PM   #545
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
"Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
No, the seller does not own the item. It was taken and then lost.
...
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 01:46 PM   #546
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
SL__72 is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 02:21 PM   #547
Strawn
adept
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 709
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by SL__72 View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Whether or not I considered the car to be "for sale" does not change that in any way.
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?
Strawn is offline  
Old 05-06-2009, 02:29 PM   #548
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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.
Where did he agree to the seller's terms?

The seller wanted him to BUY the item not TAKE the item.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 02:31 PM   #549
pvn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Inclined to Liberty

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.
 
Old 05-06-2009, 02:43 PM   #550
SL__72
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SL__72's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16,485
Re: Inclined to Liberty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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).
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
Second, the item is unrecoverable, so the right of possession cannot be exercised, which means the thief has effectively deprived the seller of ownership.
That may be, but the "seller" still legally owns the item.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strawn View Post
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?
In this case, the voluntary transfer of capital from the "thief" to the "seller."
SL__72 is offline  

 
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive