4 ms·

For all the armchair lawyers arguing on this, bear the current facts in mind: There is no legally binding precedent that can impel a private person to sell an a

For all the armchair lawyers arguing on this, bear the current facts in mind: There is no legally binding precedent that can impel a private person to sell an asset just because they stated what the price was. Merchant law and private seller law are two very different things. I think Goldstein is over-stating and over-reaching what an offer and counteroffer implies. Private sellers of assets and services are free to renege any deal - even after the contract is signed. After the contract is signed, then it is a matter for the courts. No contract was signed or implied to be signed in this case. In a private sale there is no verbal contract law - A: "How much for the lawn mower?" B: "$50 firm" A: "Sold!" B: "I don't want to sell." Verbal or written, there is absolutely no implication of a contract or acceptance of the contract at that point. Though this very much varies by state and would be governed by the state of NV. Just because an entity states they are authorized to act on a deal, does not mean they have that authority. There was a scummy domain broker around a few years ago that would send you a snail mail letter of intent to purchase your domain for a stupid low amount, with a cheque attached, and failure to respond to the letter after a certain number of days indicated your willingness to sell at the offered price. Depositing the cheque indicated your acceptance of the contract. Holding on to (or destruction of) the cheque indicates your acceptance of the contract. I know of quite a few people with high value domains who had to lawyer up to stop the transfers from taking place.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
There are a number of fairly strong claims in here, that I think you need to cite some authorities on. e.g. what is a "private sale", that precludes the possibility of a verbal contract?
- justinlloyd 4y ago
  I am not about to write out the equivalent of "Hello world!" for legal citations and the various laws as they apply to private sale vs an entity recognized as a business or merchant with established conventions. This entire thread, other than the rare statements by actual laywers (who have a learned opinion on the matter, but probably lack a lot of context without reading the actual filings) is armchair lawyering of coulda-woulda-shoulda. I happen to be one of those armchair lawyers, with a lot of law classes to back up my reasoning, but still not a paid up member of the legal profession. I stated a number of points that can be verified by anyone with a legal background, which you seem to have at least a modicum of. I hedged my bets by stating "this varies by state." It appears to be a very clear case of a business' legal team overreaching what constitutes an agreement of sale in the hopes of either scaring the owner of the asset, or swaying opinion enough to have a judge side with them. I suspect they will not prevail in their initial filing, and then they will argue for domain squatting. I doubt this will end amicably for either party. > you need to cite some authorities on P.S. I don't need to do shit.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

There are a number of fairly strong claims in here, that I think you need to cite some authorities on. e.g. what is a "private sale", that precludes the possibility of a verbal contract?

justinlloyd 4y ago
I am not about to write out the equivalent of "Hello world!" for legal citations and the various laws as they apply to private sale vs an entity recognized as a business or merchant with established conventions. This entire thread, other than the rare statements by actual laywers (who have a learned opinion on the matter, but probably lack a lot of context without reading the actual filings) is armchair lawyering of coulda-woulda-shoulda. I happen to be one of those armchair lawyers, with a lot of law classes to back up my reasoning, but still not a paid up member of the legal profession. I stated a number of points that can be verified by anyone with a legal background, which you seem to have at least a modicum of. I hedged my bets by stating "this varies by state." It appears to be a very clear case of a business' legal team overreaching what constitutes an agreement of sale in the hopes of either scaring the owner of the asset, or swaying opinion enough to have a judge side with them. I suspect they will not prevail in their initial filing, and then they will argue for domain squatting. I doubt this will end amicably for either party. > you need to cite some authorities on P.S. I don't need to do shit.