Arguing online is pretty much pointless, especially if you’re going against the majority. No matter what you say in their eyes you’re always wrong; Logical reasoning will be rebutted by hate.
I remembered why I only lurk on forums; my posting usually leads to arguments. Yesterday I wrote an article Law 101: Ebay and posted it in a M3 forum. After I wrote it I looked into the actual Ebay listing and realized what my article was wrong: The guy shouldn’t be able to get the car. My post was FOR the guy, but I argued against him on the forum, because I found the additional information. The majority of the forum hated on me, because I argued against him. It was like the guy was their hero, and I was the evil villain. It’s not a surprise that those people have closed minds and didn’t take my post serious: The internet is full of ignorant people that will hold on to their views even to the grave. Especially in those M3 forums, where people are too busy circle jerking each other to listen to other people’s ideas.
They went to my blog and voted that post to close to 1 star. That’s very ironic because that article argues FOR the guy, who those people are butthugging. I got a bunch of comments stating that I was completely wrong and didn’t know what I was talking about. But nobody, corrected me rather they all just said I was an idiot. Arguing with most of those forum members is like fighting with children: “You’re wrong, because I said so. Also you’re a stupid head :’(” Some people didn’t even resort to arguing with me logically; they just made fun of my about page video. One person said I had a speech impediment and another person was talking about my hair. Ya’ll can’t argue on my level, so ya’ll have to hate on me. Yeah, I don’t talk like an anchorman nor do I have a metrosexual haircut, for those guys who like to rate other guy’s haircuts. All ya’lls e-thugging got my feelings hurt, so bad that I thought about what I said and I’m truly sorry. *laugh*, maybe if I had a better haircut my argument would be valid.
I don’t want to hate all the members of that M3 forum: Some of them presented logical points that were respectable. I’m no expert in law and love to learn more. For those of ya’ll that didn’t just repond “JACKASS†and gave a good argument, kudos :).
Thanks guys for the fun and bringing me some traffic.
Few days ago somebody won an auction for a 2008 BMW M3 on Ebay for $60,000. Minutes after he was confirmed the winner, the dealership–selling the car– gave him a phone call; they told him that the listing price was a mistake and he would not be getting the car. It makes sense why the dealer didn’t want to sell the car to him: The new M3 is so popular that many dealerships have been spiking up the price from $70,000 to over $100,000. This incident has sparked controversy all over the online automotive niche; should he be able to purchase the car with the price he won the auction with? To answer this question let’s talk about contracts.
What is a contract? It is an agreement between two entities that is enforceable by law.
There are two types of contracts.
1. Bilateral- a promise exchanged for a promise( This incident is a Bilateral one)
2. Unilateral – a promise exchanged for an act.
There are four requirements to a contract
1. There must be an agreement made between two parties
a. Offer
b. Acceptance
2. Must have consideration( both parties must give something in the bargain)
3. Contractual Capacity – all parties are legally capable of entering into contracts
4. Legality – contract must be legal
Obviously, the 3rd and the 4th requirements are met. Both the parties know what is at risk and are competent enough to make their own decisions. There are a few exceptions to this rule; neither party can be insane, drunk, or underage when the contract was made. If any of those qualifications are met, the contract will become a voidable one (legal but can be voided). The 4th requirement is met, because it’s an exchange for two promises that are legal. The guy gives the dealer money, and then the dealer gives the guy the car, nothing illegal there.
The 1st requirement is the most controversial to meet. An agreement for a contract happens by two events: an offer and an acceptance. The offer is a promise to perform or refrain from performing an act in the future. In auctions—like Ebay— the seller invites people to bid on their products by submitting offers; however, these offers are not offers to form a contract. Think of it as the sellers are just testing the waters to see how much money somebody would go into a contract for. The seller can revoke bids or all bids, until the auction ends. But when the auction ends a contract is usually formed: All auctions are considered to have a reserve, unless otherwise stated. The reserve means that the seller can refuse to sell and not make a contract. But in this case, the Ebay auction had “no reserve†and therefore entered a contract with the buyer. Auctions that clearly state they have no reserve must be sold to the highest bidder. The Uniform Commercial Code ( I believe chapter 15) states reinforces this concept of the reserve. There is a court case relating to this issue: A plaintiff won a domain name and the company refused to sell it. In the end, the company was forced to sell it because it was a legal contract. Lim v The.Tv Corp. International, 99 Cal.App.4th 684 (2nd Dist 2002).
The second part of the 1st requirement requires acceptance. This means that the seller must have shown assent, or agreement to the terms of the offer. The dealership knew what it was getting into by putting no reserve and listing it on Ebay. Additionally, an acceptance can be made through words or conduct. If the dealership had already setup directions on how to pay and what would be done when won; it is basically accepting the agreement before the offer is made.
The 2nd requirement for a contract requires consideration. It must have legally sufficient value and there must be a bargained-for exchange. Having legal value just means, the seller and buyer are not obligated to exchange goods but are doing so anyways. The guy doesn’t have to buy the car, there are no legal consequences by doing so; he does it by his own will. Bargained-for exchange means that either now or the future both parties must incur detriment, meaning they must lose something; the guy would lose the money and the dealership would lose the car. Both parties have to lose something. For instance, if Jon said he’ll give you $500 and never does, you can’t sue him for breach of contract: This isn’t bargain-for exchange because Jon isn’t getting anything in return. Consideration is really easy to meet in the case of auctions because. There are no obligations to sign up for the auction and there is always an exchange from both parties. That guy wasn’t required to bid, but since he won he suffers detriment, by trading his money for the car. Both requirements are settled for consideration.
That guy has a really good shot at purchasing the car for the price he won it at. It seems like all the requirements for a contract are met; therefore, it’s legally enforceable. Too bad he can’t take it straight to Federal Court: I believe the amount in question has to be greater than $70,000. But I doubt he’ll have to use the courts; most likely, the dealership will settle with him by giving an incentive to release them from the contract.
Charles Humble is the man who came up with the CVSA machine. It is a lie detection software on laptops that has been bought by over 1500 police departments and even been used at Guantanamo Bay to interview terrorists. The software cost $10,000 and, meaning he has made over $15 million in revenue! Charles humble calls himself Dr. Charles Humble based on his psychology degree in which he took 6 hours of bible studies classes at a school that was not accredited, and doesn’t even exist any more. Departments continue to use it even though there has been a case of a boy who was convinced by the machine’s results that he killed his little sister! Luckily DNA evidence proves other wise. Humble deserves to go to jail and fined about $15 million for his craziness…but he won’t.
