Scammed on the GTN

[Brewski]

54...l2countpagesnub

 

 

 

To be fair, those four pages could have all popped up in the time it took me to post my reply...

[TUXs]

To be fair, those four pages could have all popped up in the time it took me to post my reply...

 

LOL! Noted!

[AlienEyeTX]

orly, do tell. Because I recall correcting you on your incorrect debunking with a quoted segment from the article you linked which contradicted you.

 

But your correction was false, so... yeah.

 

There was nothing to misunderstand. GTN prices are clearly stated in the same, accepted, form every single time.

[MillionsKNives]

But your correction was false, so... yeah.

 

There was nothing to misunderstand. GTN prices are clearly stated in the same, accepted, form every single time.

 

Ok, I'll just take your word for it then? Good argument.

[MigSebes]

Cry wolf much? You did NOT get scammed at all. YOU made a mistake. Next time take your time to look at prices...

[Starflayer]

It's not a mistake of fact. Not only must a mistake of fact be mutual (both parties have to be under the same mistaken assumption), the mistake has to be as to the nature of the item or it's quality, not it's price. A really good example of this would be if I have a pretty rock and you think it would look good on your desk so you offer to buy it. We both think the rock is worthless, so I sell it to you for $5. On a whim, you take it to your friend, a geologist, to find out what kind of rock it is, and he tells you it's actually an incredibly rare and precious stone, worth millions. That's a mistake of fact, and I would have a good chance of getting my rock back.

 

The problem with this situation, from a legal standpoint, is that there's no real life scenario like the one presented by the GTN. Buying things off of Amazon or Ebay is as close as it gets, but even then the exchange of payment and item are not simultaneous, and there's plenty of time for the buyer to realize the mistake and take action that doesn't involve going anywhere near a courthouse. The example of buying a house that was posted recently is not a good example because there's a ton of things, including copious amounts of paperwork and consultations with the bank, between deciding you want to buy a house and actually buying it. No court would accept that a person going through all of that didn't know how much they were paying,

 

Hypothetically, if someone were selling an item that a reasonable person would pay $300 for but not $300,000, and the price was listed as $300k, and the item was purchased in a manner that didn't allow for the buyer to double check how much he had paid until after the fact, then I think there would be a good chance of the buyer getting their money back. The chance goes up if the buyer, soon after purchase, explains his mistake and attempts to return the item, and the seller refuses.

 

The circumstances, such as who the seller is, who the buyer is, what the item is, etc. would matter a lot in this situation and might change the outcome, but the best argument the buyer could make would be unconscionability, and to a lesser extent misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a harder case to make because it tends to apply to the misrepresentation of quality or the actual value of the goods, not as to what the price is, but it might work. Would depend on the case law.

 

Unconscionability is basically a catch all in contract law. When a judge sees a situation that looks fishy and smells fishy, but none of the traditional doctrines for voiding a contract apply (such as fraud), the judge can fall back on this. Basically, if given all the evidence, it looked like the seller was trying to trick people into believing they were paying $300 for something when they were really paying $300,000, the judge might call it unconscionable and order the buyers money returned (and if the seller looked REALLY shady, the buyer might get to keep the item, too).

 

That being said, the court really doesn't like to be called on to determine the value of an item. The general idea is that value is subjective, so just because most people wouldn't pay $300,000 for this item, it doesn't mean that the buyer didn't place a much higher value on it than most and is now trying to wiggle out of the deal. Again, it's likely the surrounding circumstances that would really determine this case, not just the raw facts.

 

Also, once more, there is no real world equivalent to an MMO's AH/GTN, so this is all pretty speculative. And, of course, none of it ultimately matters because the game runs on Bioware's rules, not those of the legal system. Fun hypothetical, though.

[AlienEyeTX]

It's not a mistake of fact. Not only must a mistake of fact be mutual (both parties have to be under the same mistaken assumption), the mistake has to be as to the nature of the item or it's quality, not it's price. A really good example of this would be if I have a pretty rock and you think it would look good on your desk so you offer to buy it. We both think the rock is worthless, so I sell it to you for $5. On a whim, you take it to your friend, a geologist, to find out what kind of rock it is, and he tells you it's actually an incredibly rare and precious stone, worth millions. That's a mistake of fact, and I would have a good chance of getting my rock back.

 

The problem with this situation, from a legal standpoint, is that there's no real life scenario like the one presented by the GTN. Buying things off of Amazon or Ebay is as close as it gets, but even then the exchange of payment and item are not simultaneous, and there's plenty of time for the buyer to realize the mistake and take action that doesn't involve going anywhere near a courthouse. The example of buying a house that was posted recently is not a good example because there's a ton of things, including copious amounts of paperwork and consultations with the bank, between deciding you want to buy a house and actually buying it. No court would accept that a person going through all of that didn't know how much they were paying,

 

Hypothetically, if someone were selling an item that a reasonable person would pay $300 for but not $300,000, and the price was listed as $300k, and the item was purchased in a manner that didn't allow for the buyer to double check how much he had paid until after the fact, then I think there would be a good chance of the buyer getting their money back. The chance goes up if the buyer, soon after purchase, explains his mistake and attempts to return the item, and the seller refuses.

 

The circumstances, such as who the seller is, who the buyer is, what the item is, etc. would matter a lot in this situation and might change the outcome, but the best argument the buyer could make would be unconscionability, and to a lesser extent misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is a harder case to make because it tends to apply to the misrepresentation of quality or the actual value of the goods, not as to what the price is, but it might work. Would depend on the case law.

 

Unconscionability is basically a catch all in contract law. When a judge sees a situation that looks fishy and smells fishy, but none of the traditional doctrines for voiding a contract apply (such as fraud), the judge can fall back on this. Basically, if given all the evidence, it looked like the seller was trying to trick people into believing they were paying $300 for something when they were really paying $300,000, the judge might call it unconscionable and order the buyers money returned (and if the seller looked REALLY shady, the buyer might get to keep the item, too).

 

That being said, the court really doesn't like to be called on to determine the value of an item. The general idea is that value is subjective, so just because most people wouldn't pay $300,000 for this item, it doesn't mean that the buyer didn't place a much higher value on it than most and is now trying to wiggle out of the deal. Again, it's likely the surrounding circumstances that would really determine this case, not just the raw facts.

 

Also, once more, there is no real world equivalent to an MMO's AH/GTN, so this is all pretty speculative. And, of course, none of it ultimately matters because the game runs on Bioware's rules, not those of the legal system. Fun hypothetical, though.

 

Thanks for typing that out. You are much less lazy than I am.

[MillionsKNives]

-snip-

 

You seem to be a lot more familiar with this than I am, but I have a question based on your description. From the explanation written here it suggests that it only needs both parties to be mutually mistaken in certain circumstances, and also does mention that mistake of fact qualifies for the price as well as the quality.

 

In the event of a unilateral mistake, only one party to the agreement is mistaken about a material fact. In such a case, the party adversely affected by the mistake will not be able to void the contract unless the other party knew or should have known of the mistake,

 

I'd say that if someone is purposefully looking to get someone else to mistakenly pay more for an item than they thought then that would constitute them knowing about the mistake, because their entire scheme relies on someone making that mistake.

 

For example, assume that a footwear retailer offers to buy 100 mukluks from a mukluk manufacturer for $10 a pair. Assume further that the retailer mistakenly orders 100 mukluks for $100 a pair. If the mukluk manufacturer delivers 100 mukluks and later demands $100 for each pair, the retailer can ask a court to reform the contract to reflect a price of $10 a pair. This action generally occurs when the mistake makes the agreement Unconscionable.

 

This seems to reflect one party mistakenly buying for more than they intended and the price being changed because of the mistake. This does bring in the concept of "unconscionable" which you mentioned, and like you say there isn't really a perfect real-world analogy to the auction house. But one could argue that the intent to pay 333 credits when they clicked buy is analogous to offering $10, and the item actually being listed for 333,333 being analogous to mistakenly ordering for $100.

 

Your post though gives a very informative look at the overall idea being debated, with respect to courts.

Edited August 29, 2014 by MillionsKNives

[Khevar]

@Starflayer, I just wanted to thank you for a really interesting post on this subject.

 

It was a good read, and seems to be a solidly defensible statement of the situation.

 

Kudos.

[Calsetes]

After all 333.333 is a valid number, and could potentially be shown on the GTN (even though it won't).

 

No, it can't. Period. Fini.

 

The GTN will ever only show, at most, tenths and hundredths of a credit. It does not, nor will not, display thousandths of a credit. Seeing more than two positions past a decimal point will not happen, does not happen, cannot happen. Any time you see three numbers past any sort of dividing character like that, it's breaking it down between hundreds and thousands, or hundred-thousands and millions. The entire argument is null and void simply because of this one fact - what you are saying "makes it a scam" physically cannot happen in the game. This is akin to saying a Sentinel is overpowered because he uses a doublesaber and wears heavy armor. That combination of things - a double-saber and heavy armor - cannot physically exist on the same character. Likewise, a Sentinel cannot use heavy armor, or even a doublesaber.

 

Analyze the facts of the situation, not the hypothetical "what ifs." The facts are as follows:

 

-Buyer misread a listing.

-Buyer bought said listing.

-Buyer paid more than he expected.

-Buyer claims he was scammed.

 

If I buy a pack of widgets at a store because I believe they were marked as $3.50, but read the tag above the shelf and not below it, then I was not scammed when I had to pay $4.50 for it instead. That is not the fault of the store, but the fault of the customer. That is what happened here - OP bought a pack of widgets at 1.5 million instead of 1,500. He did not read it carefully. There was no fine print. There was no clause. He clicked the wrong one - for whatever reason - and he is claiming he has been scammed.

[AlienEyeTX]

You seem to be a lot more familiar with this than I am, but I have a question based on your description. From the explanation written here it suggests that it only needs both parties to be mutually mistaken in certain circumstances, and also does mention that mistake of fact qualifies for the price as well as the quality.

 

 

 

I'd say that if someone is purposefully looking to get someone else to mistakenly pay more for an item than they thought then that would constitute them knowing about the mistake, because their entire scheme relies on someone making that mistake.

 

 

 

This seems to reflect one party mistakenly buying for more than they intended and the price being changed because of the mistake. This does bring in the concept of "unconscionable" which you mentioned, and like you say there isn't really a perfect real-world analogy to the auction house. But one could argue that the intent to pay 333 credits when they clicked buy is analogous to offering $10, and the item actually being listed for 333,333 being analogous to mistakenly ordering for $100.

 

Your post though gives a very informative look at the overall idea being debated, with respect to courts.

 

The mukluk example does not apply in this situation. In that case, there was an agreed-upon price and then an error was made. The seller tried to capitalize on the mistake of the buyer, who had already agreed to a different price.

 

On the GTN, the seller offered a product for a price. The buyer agreed to pay the price. The buyer then received the agreed upon good at the agreed upon price. Transaction complete.

 

You may not agree with the price that was listed, but that doesn't make the practice "wrong," per se. It might be shady, but it's not a scam and it's not dishonest.

[Infernixx]

The mukluk example does not apply in this situation. In that case, there was an agreed-upon price and then an error was made. The seller tried to capitalize on the mistake of the buyer, who had already agreed to a different price.

 

On the GTN, the seller offered a product for a price. The buyer agreed to pay the price. The buyer then received the agreed upon good at the agreed upon price. Transaction complete.

 

You may not agree with the price that was listed, but that doesn't make the practice "wrong," per se. It might be shady, but it's not a scam and it's not dishonest.

 

It's definitely shady and designed to take advantage of inattentive players, but not a scam.

[MillionsKNives]

No, it can't. Period. Fini.

 

The GTN will ever only show, at most, tenths and hundredths of a credit. It does not, nor will not, display thousandths of a credit. Seeing more than two positions past a decimal point will not happen, does not happen, cannot happen. Any time you see three numbers past any sort of dividing character like that, it's breaking it down between hundreds and thousands, or hundred-thousands and millions. The entire argument is null and void simply because of this one fact - what you are saying "makes it a scam" physically cannot happen in the game. This is akin to saying a Sentinel is overpowered because he uses a doublesaber and wears heavy armor. That combination of things - a double-saber and heavy armor - cannot physically exist on the same character. Likewise, a Sentinel cannot use heavy armor, or even a doublesaber.

 

Analyze the facts of the situation, not the hypothetical "what ifs." The facts are as follows:

 

-Buyer misread a listing.

-Buyer bought said listing.

-Buyer paid more than he expected.

-Buyer claims he was scammed.

 

We are talking about a person's interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. It doesn't matter if it can't happen, it's whether a person would believe it can happen, consciously or subconsciously. Everything you just said is irrelevant because people don't deal in how the world is, they deal in how they believe the world is.

 

Because it's reasonable and possible for a person to mistake 333,333 for 333.333, which is a very real number, it's possible for someone to take advantage of that fact and scam them. It doesn't matter if 333.333 is actually possible in the game, it only matters if a person thinks it could be possible (consciously or subconsciously) and it causes them to mistake 333,333 for it.

 

If I buy a pack of widgets at a store because I believe they were marked as $3.50, but read the tag above the shelf and not below it, then I was not scammed when I had to pay $4.50 for it instead. That is not the fault of the store, but the fault of the customer. That is what happened here - OP bought a pack of widgets at 1.5 million instead of 1,500. He did not read it carefully. There was no fine print. There was no clause. He clicked the wrong one - for whatever reason - and he is claiming he has been scammed.

 

You're having trouble with the whole intent and deception part aren't you?

 

And while you can argue that the item was poorly labeled (maybe it was maybe it wasn't) and it caused you to be deceived, it couldn't be called a scam unless they did it on purpose to trick you.

[scottythebod]

QFT and agree with you 100%, I have to stop writing because my blood pressure just went up. We dont live in a fair world, you must learn that to survive, there are scamers, there are bullies, there are abusers, there are those who use every gimmick and trick in the world to obtain things without working for it, but at the end it is up to you to make the right choice and the right decision. Enuff said, my pressure is going.... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 depp breth

Calm down, no one is really even arguing against anything you said here. We all agree that the OP is ultimately at fault here for not taking the time to double check what he was buying. No one is denying that scammers, bullies etc. exist in fact we're arguing that the seller in this case may have been just such a person. In fact no one other than TUX's is saying BioWare should refund him or do anything at all that I've seen.

 

Also the OP isn't acting entitled, he didn't demand a refund, he asked politely if there was any way he could get his money back & admitted that it was entirely his fault.

[MillionsKNives]

It's definitely shady and designed to take advantage of inattentive players, but not a scam.

 

That's pretty much exactly what a scam is. You set up your sale in such a way, based on known human behavior, in order to take advantage of someone being careless.

[Kantaso]

Calm down, no one is really even arguing against anything you said here. We all agree that the OP is ultimately at fault here for not taking the time to double check what he was buying. No one is denying that scammers, bullies etc. exist in fact we're arguing that the seller in this case may have been just such a person. In fact no one other than TUX's is saying BioWare should refund him or do anything at all that I've seen.

 

Also the OP isn't acting entitled, he didn't demand a refund, he asked politely if there was any way he could get his money back & admitted that it was entirely his fault.

 

Agreed with you, the sad thing and that is where my undies got caught on the door, that I have seen and see day in and day out similar statements here in the USA, in the media, in the news, in the radio, in the tv, wow look at me poor me, I have been scammed, I have been taken advantage, poor me, I am discriminated. Bull, if you want to stand up on your two feet you can. I am an immigrant and came to the USA to try to live a better life and this land has provided me with all the opportunities to do so. But again I have to step to the plate to make those dreams come true.

 

But I see many people around me born here in the USA all day crying wolf, poor me, I am a victim. Man up and grow some courage and change your status quo. No saying the OP did that, just saying that so many people came in the defense of the OP portraying him as a victim. Anyway back to my heart medicine.

[MillionsKNives]

The mukluk example does not apply in this situation. In that case, there was an agreed-upon price and then an error was made. The seller tried to capitalize on the mistake of the buyer, who had already agreed to a different price.

 

On the GTN, the seller offered a product for a price. The buyer agreed to pay the price. The buyer then received the agreed upon good at the agreed upon price. Transaction complete.

 

You may not agree with the price that was listed, but that doesn't make the practice "wrong," per se. It might be shady, but it's not a scam and it's not dishonest.

 

As the other poster said it's impossible to get a real-life analogy to the situation. That's what happens when you compare a multi-step process (pretty much any real-life transaction) with a single-click process (the GTN).

 

The poster was willing to spend 333 credits, he offered to pay 333 credits (when he clicked buy that was the amount he was expecting to pay), but clicked on a listing that was 333,333 credits instead. The buyer then charged (the GTN removed) 333,333 credits instead. The seller was looking to capitalize on the mistake of the buyer, who thought he had agreed to a different price.

[Calsetes]

We are talking about a person's interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. It doesn't matter if it can't happen, it's whether a person would believe it can happen, consciously or subconsciously. Everything you just said is irrelevant because people don't deal in how the world is, they deal in how they believe the world is.

 

Because it's reasonable and possible for a person to mistake 333,333 for 333.333, which is a very real number, it's possible for someone to take advantage of that fact and scam them. It doesn't matter if 333.333 is actually possible in the game, it only matters if a person thinks it could be possible (consciously or subconsciously) and it causes them to mistake 333,333 for it.

 

 

 

You're having trouble with the whole intent and deception part aren't you?

 

And while you can argue that the item was poorly labeled (maybe it was maybe it wasn't) and it caused you to be deceived, it couldn't be called a scam unless they did it on purpose to trick you.

 

I can be thrown in a PvP match against a Commando using a Vibrosword and wearing Smuggler armor and using Force Lightning. It's a possibility - it could happen. Let's ignore the fact that the game rules strictly make that scenario impossible - that's what you keep claiming when you fall back on the number of decimal places argument. Could a character in Star Wars use such a combination of things? I'm sure someone at some point has - but not in this game, which is where all this data is pertinent. 123.456 cannot happen. Is 123.456 a real number? Sure. Is 123.456 a valid number of credits and could be seen in this game? No.

 

And going back to the intent thing - you are assuming what the intent of the seller was. Perhaps he hit too many zeroes - is it still a scam then? Perhaps he thought he had 50 and not 5 - was his posting still an attempt at deceit? If you're going to talk about hypothetical situations, then cover every single hypothetical situation. And since every hypothetical situation can result in either party being at fault due to the sheer number of variables in said hypothetical situations, use the plain-and-simple facts of the situation to make your determination. The buyer misread the amount. He stated as much - that's an indisputable fact. He bought a listing on the GTN - he stated as much. He spent more than he had planned on - he stated as much. He is making a claim to being scammed when there is no claim to being scammed as he himself stated that he made a mistake.

[Infernixx]

That's pretty much exactly what a scam is. You set up your sale in such a way, based on known human behavior, in order to take advantage of someone being careless.

 

No, a scam is deceptive. It represents something as something that it is not. In this case, the shady seller simply hoped that someone inattentive would come along, scan and not read closely and impatiently click all the 'yes' buttons.

 

'Scam' means something in particular. The term you're looking for is 'unethical.'

 

To wit: A used car dealer lies about the condition of a car that he's selling. That's a scam.

 

A used car dealer doesn't talk about the problems that the car has and the buyer doesn't bother asking. That's unethical. He's taking advantage of the buyer's gullibility and inattention to details.

[PavSalco]

This thread was made yesterday and it has already 56 pages? Ain't gonna read that

[AlienEyeTX]

As the other poster said it's impossible to get a real-life analogy to the situation. That's what happens when you compare a multi-step process (pretty much any real-life transaction) with a single-click process (the GTN).

 

The poster was willing to spend 333 credits, he offered to pay 333 credits (when he clicked buy that was the amount he was expecting to pay), but clicked on a listing that was 333,333 credits instead. The buyer then charged (the GTN removed) 333,333 credits instead. The seller was looking to capitalize on the mistake of the buyer, who thought he had agreed to a different price.

 

And has been pointed many, many times.... He may have thought that 333,333 was 333.333. But, the GTN would list such a price (per unit) as 333.33. So, it's really just carelessness on the buyer's part.

 

Think of it like this: I'm playing in a baseball game. I'm the second baseman and "Bob" hits a double. I make a trowing motion toward the pitcher when the play is over (but keep the ball). "Bob" decides to lead-off and I walk over and tag him out. Did I scam him, or was he careless?

 

Not a great example, but I hope you get the point. People gotta pay attention. "Bob" cannot argue to the umpire that it was an unfair play and go back to second. He's out and next time he has to pay better attention.

[Starflayer]

You seem to be a lot more familiar with this than I am, but I have a question based on your description. From the explanation written here it suggests that it only needs both parties to be mutually mistaken in certain circumstances, and also does mention that mistake of fact qualifies for the price as well as the quality.

 

Yes, you're right, there are exceptions to the mutuality requirement. A lot of them have to do with a duty to disclose or clerical errors. So, for a duty to disclose example, I'm selling my car and you reasonably believe the car is in perfect condition, but I know that the engine needs a complete overhaul. I have a duty to tell you that. In fact, I likely have a duty to tell you that even if I don't know you've made a mistake.

 

As for a clerical example, that's basically what the mukluk's example is. That's not one party making a mistake about the price. Both parties knew what the price was, but the buyer ordered wrong. The same rule applies if the seller had charged $1 per pair when they had meant to charge $10. Basically, even an incredibly negligent clerical error can get someone out of a contract (or at least get it reformed to the price it was supposed to be).

 

UNLESS there was reliance, but that's a whole 'nother bag of worms and doesn't apply here.

 

 

I'd say that if someone is purposefully looking to get someone else to mistakenly pay more for an item than they thought then that would constitute them knowing about the mistake, because their entire scheme relies on someone making that mistake.

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is that you already have to have shown that the seller was trying to trick people into paying more for an item than they thought they were paying. If you can show that then you've probably just won the case and don't even need to get into mistake of fact.

 

Without proving that the seller was intentionally trying to trick people, you have to show that he knew the buyer was paying more for an item then intended. In a situation like this, were the buyer and seller don't interact with one another, that's an impossible task. You don't just get to make assumptions about what the seller knows or believes.

 

Now, if I walk into a store, see an item labeled $300k, take it up to the register and say "I'm sure glad I found one of these for $300, I've been looking everywhere. At $300 it's just perfect." And the seller, knowing full well that the real price is $300,000, rings up the sale and swipes my credit card without saying anything about my mistake, then I probably have a case. Again, though, it's going to depend on surrounding circumstances (and there are going to be some hard questions from the judge such as "Why didn't you look at the receipt you signed?"). If the item is one traditionally sold for around $300,000, not $300, then my case is substantially weaker.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Starflayer

[Darth_Wicked]

Do some of you guys sleep, drink, go out or make a meal? Anything?

[Kantaso]

Do some of you guys sleep, drink, go out or make a meal? Anything?

 

you forgot exercise.

[Calsetes]

Do some of you guys sleep, drink, go out or make a meal? Anything?

 

I do this when I'm bored at work. It's why I stopped posting in this thread almost entirely at a certain time and started back up at a different time, before stopping at a certain time again today.