
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.04.06 23:23:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Jack Cunningham Edited by: Jack Cunningham on 01/04/2007 22:20:18 Edited by: Jack Cunningham on 01/04/2007 21:48:41 ok, in all honesty i was bored,
I saw a few people buying the gtcs the old way so i thought hmm ccp dont support this but ya kno ill sell a few, cos i did genuinely have some in my mailbox.
so we start of and he says send the mails, so i sent the mails and though hmm ok then, he sent the isk and i was about to send the code when my comp froze, so instantly i restart so i dont get banned. Log back in n i cant convo him, [Linkage]
So now im thinking hmm wtf, so i look in address notice he/she is not there so i readd them.
instantly i get a convo up and i applogise for the inconvinence and send the money back.
So heres where i got smart, he/she wanted to try again so i said ok then,
So here we go again with the mails.
Below is what mine contained:
Quote: Subject: 1x tc 135million Body: selling 1x tc for 135 million
Then for his reply:
Quote: subject:selling 1x tc for 135million body: buying 1x 30 gtc for 135million
2 seconds late i recive the isk and i think ok, i just agreed to sell him a TC? so what the hell is a tc?
well in ccp rules a GTC is a game time code, and a TC ( is an abriviation used by some people ) but is not what the item is called!
so instantly i sent this guy his TC (Total Crap)
My reply mail
Quote: Thank you for your purcahse of 1x TC (total Crap) Also included was a free sig , please see below
Now as far as i am aware i never scammed the guy as i was selling him 1x tc, if i was using the abrivation i would have to say selling 1x 30 day time code and list how many days it was ;)
Under contract law you did scam him. Contract law says that it doesn't matter how you describe what you are selling, if there is a "meeting of the minds" there is an enforceable contract for the item both parties knew was being talked about. It doesn't matter if you are selling "widgets" and there's no definition of what a widget is, if both parties know what you are talking about there is an enforceable contract. Further, if there's a dispute and the party who is being sued for being in breach knew what the other party meant, they automatically lose. This is a basic principle of contract law that is followed by the US, UK, and most western countries. So, because you have openly admitted you knew what he meant the evidence clearly shows that the contract was for a GTC and you are in breach. Not sure if any of that matters in CCP's eyes, but it may. ----------------------------------------------------
|