3 ms·

I don't know what you mean by 'doesn't exist.' Shares in publicly traded corporations exist. I can buy them. I can sell them. Their value changes over time. Th

by jpitz 9y ago

I don't know what you mean by 'doesn't exist.' Shares in publicly traded corporations exist. I can buy them. I can sell them. Their value changes over time. Their purpose is to provide funding to the corporation, in exchange for the perception that they'll provide a return to the investor. It is an exceedingly common thing to sell them to a third party - have a look at the volume on your favorite stock exchange. A service contract, first and foremost, is a contract between a provider and a purchaser, for the provider to provide a service to the purchaser. It may or may not be transferable. It does have a value, but, much of the time, a B2C service contract isn't a thing that is traded or sold. It happens, but not anywhere near the scale of investment vehicles. For example, I purchased a service, a home warranty. I intend to transfer ownership of it to the purchaser of my house. It was expressly purchased with a third party transfer in mind, but this is a low-volume transaction. I certainly don't know anyone who is buying email service with the intent of reselling them for a profit, do you? So, how is it nonsense?

deong 9y ago
He means they don't "exist" in a legal sense. They aren't a special category of things in the law that are separately called out to be treated differently than any other aspect of transactions governed by contract law. Legally, you buy something under either express or implied terms, constrained by the legal system where you bought it. I'm not aware of any distinction made where a service contract doesn't need to be honored, but an "investment vehicle" is treated differently.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> I don't know what you mean by 'doesn't exist.' I mean that it's not a separate legal category, it's more of a colloquial thing. Legally, there is property and contract law, and people use that "for investment purposes", but it's largely the same law that applies whether you buy an apple that you want to eat or a share of apple that you want to hold to earn money: You become the (co-)owner. > A service contract, first and foremost, is a contract between a provider and a purchaser Yeah, and a bond is first and foremost a contract between a "provider" and a purchaser. And it so happens that bond contracts commonly specify payments in money, but that's legally not all that different from a contract that instead specifies payments in apples or email service or whatever. > It does have a value, but, much of the time, a B2C service contract isn't a thing that is traded or sold. Which is relevant to the distinction how? Can you sell a fixed-term deposit to a third party? Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't, but how does that change that it's quite obviously an investment? > I certainly don't know anyone who is buying email service with the intent of reselling them for a profit, do you? There is no need to resell for something to be an investment? But even if there were, that doesn't influence the legal status: Even if noone ever resold their bonds and there was no market to do so, that would not excuse the issuing party from paying interest.
- jpitz 9y ago
  To answer you, and the other responder: I hear the point that you feel there isn't a separate legal category. I'm not convinced. I see an argument to be made, to the effect that there's plenty of statutory ink on paper detailing rules for how various investment vehicle transactions may be handled. It seems clear to me that perhaps they do have a special space carved out in the legal system, at least in the US. I do still feel like I need to emphasize - I'm not condoning any situation where a company offers lifetime service, and then goes back on their word. I do think a lot of companies try to extract value from the margin between a broken contract and the pain of enforcing that break.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > I see an argument to be made, to the effect that there's plenty of statutory ink on paper detailing rules for how various investment vehicle transactions may be handled. It seems clear to me that perhaps they do have a special space carved out in the legal system, at least in the US. Well, yes, there exist some special legal constructs just for investment purposes--but that by far does not encompass all of the things that you would commonly consider "investments". Most of the legal stuff around investments is regulation of market places and banks, to create a safe environment to do investment transactions in--but that's mostly orthogonal to the actual investment vehicles. Like, you can buy shares of a company in a regulated market place through your bank. But you can also buy shares in a one-on-one transaction from someone you know in cash, without the involvement of any bank or stock exchange. The laws that govern the resulting (co-)ownership are the same, whether you bought the shares this way or that way. And many of the laws are the same that govern the ownership of cars and shoes and bread.

by jpitz 9y ago

deong 9y ago

He means they don't "exist" in a legal sense. They aren't a special category of things in the law that are separately called out to be treated differently than any other aspect of transactions governed by contract law. Legally, you buy something under either express or implied terms, constrained by the legal system where you bought it. I'm not aware of any distinction made where a service contract doesn't need to be honored, but an "investment vehicle" is treated differently.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> I don't know what you mean by 'doesn't exist.' I mean that it's not a separate legal category, it's more of a colloquial thing. Legally, there is property and contract law, and people use that "for investment purposes", but it's largely the same law that applies whether you buy an apple that you want to eat or a share of apple that you want to hold to earn money: You become the (co-)owner. > A service contract, first and foremost, is a contract between a provider and a purchaser Yeah, and a bond is first and foremost a contract between a "provider" and a purchaser. And it so happens that bond contracts commonly specify payments in money, but that's legally not all that different from a contract that instead specifies payments in apples or email service or whatever. > It does have a value, but, much of the time, a B2C service contract isn't a thing that is traded or sold. Which is relevant to the distinction how? Can you sell a fixed-term deposit to a third party? Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't, but how does that change that it's quite obviously an investment? > I certainly don't know anyone who is buying email service with the intent of reselling them for a profit, do you? There is no need to resell for something to be an investment? But even if there were, that doesn't influence the legal status: Even if noone ever resold their bonds and there was no market to do so, that would not excuse the issuing party from paying interest.

jpitz 9y ago
To answer you, and the other responder: I hear the point that you feel there isn't a separate legal category. I'm not convinced. I see an argument to be made, to the effect that there's plenty of statutory ink on paper detailing rules for how various investment vehicle transactions may be handled. It seems clear to me that perhaps they do have a special space carved out in the legal system, at least in the US. I do still feel like I need to emphasize - I'm not condoning any situation where a company offers lifetime service, and then goes back on their word. I do think a lot of companies try to extract value from the margin between a broken contract and the pain of enforcing that break.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > I see an argument to be made, to the effect that there's plenty of statutory ink on paper detailing rules for how various investment vehicle transactions may be handled. It seems clear to me that perhaps they do have a special space carved out in the legal system, at least in the US. Well, yes, there exist some special legal constructs just for investment purposes--but that by far does not encompass all of the things that you would commonly consider "investments". Most of the legal stuff around investments is regulation of market places and banks, to create a safe environment to do investment transactions in--but that's mostly orthogonal to the actual investment vehicles. Like, you can buy shares of a company in a regulated market place through your bank. But you can also buy shares in a one-on-one transaction from someone you know in cash, without the involvement of any bank or stock exchange. The laws that govern the resulting (co-)ownership are the same, whether you bought the shares this way or that way. And many of the laws are the same that govern the ownership of cars and shoes and bread.