Breach of Contract.. well sort of

[NameTower]

I had worked out a deal with a guy to purchase a bunch of names for him for $2500

He gave me until a certain date to make my decision

He wrote up a contract and it stated in that contract that I had until the date to decide what i wanted to do
i agreed to that

and i planned to execute the deal

he backs out as I say I want to pay with paypal and i stress that I have the funds in my account to pay him and it would take a while to get him payment

he said escrow only

i say i will let him know by the date.

he emails me back days later stating that he does not trust me as i keep asking him to use paypal and he thinks i am scamming him

later on i find out he had sold one of the names for the actual price of the lot and that is obviously why he backed out of our agreement

regardless he did so

anything i can do legally

normally it wouldnt be a big deal

however he was extremely rude to me when i contact him about this and therefore if anything legally can be done i would like to do so.

thanks.
(i'd like some advice on what i can do and if i would have a case against him)

 

[Steen]

Well...


First off, the contract would as far as I know be null, becuase you cannot enter a binding contract.

Second, to take legal action would most likely cost you more than the $2500 investment

I personally dont think its right for one to sign a contract when they know the contract won't hold because of thier age.

 

[NameTower]

yah age is also another thing..

 

[ShaunP]

Originally posted by Steen
Well...


First off, the contract would as far as I know be null, becuase you cannot enter a binding contract.

Second, to take legal action would most likely cost you more than the $2500 investment

I personally dont think its right for one to sign a contract when they know the contract won't hold because of thier age.

That says it all. In this business it really helps to KNOW who you are dealing with. There are a lot of duds and scamers out there who will back out of any deal for an extra $500.

Jordan, .. why the hell are you drawing up contracts that YOU cannot be held responsible for ... that is fraud in itself ... in my mind!


Shaun

 

[NameTower]

it was like an agreement
he spelled out all the stuff that was to take place and all..
theres nothing i can do anyways..
but thanks for the heads up on this sort of issue.

 

[jberryhill]

"First off, the contract would as far as I know be null, becuase you cannot enter a binding contract."

No. This is one of my pet-peeve popular legal misconceptions.

Henry VI became King of England at the age of nine months, gang.

When Britney Spears was 17 years old, do you think for one red-hot stinking moment that she couldn't enter into a contract? You bet your breast-implants she could. And did. For millions of dollars.

Without getting into the details of how these issues are handled with the Mcauley Caulkins and Shirley Temples of the entertainment industry, minors certainly can and do enter into binding contracts. If you know a minor with a job, then you know a minor with a binding contract.

I certainly hope, Steen, that when some kid offers to shovel your walk for ten bucks after a snowstorm that you don't watch him do the shoveling and then say, "Buzz off, kid, we don't have a contract." You certainly do, and that is WHY minors can hold adults to contracts.

As a general proposition, contracts with minors are neither null nor void. They are, however, voidable - but ONLY BY THE MINOR. For example, the kid can shovel half your walk, get bored, and walk away. You don't have to pay him, but you can't force him to come back and finish the job.

If you (an adult) contract with a minor, then you can be held accountable for that contract in every detail. On the other hand, with certain exceptions that aren't relevant here, the minor can breach and void the contract, and YOU can't enforce it against the minor.

If the minor reaches the age of majority during the term of the contract, and the contract is still being performed, then the minor will be held to have ratified the contract upon attaining the age of majority, and it will be enforceable against him/her. This is inclusive of marriages among minors (the denoument of the movie _Liar Liar_ was legally incorrect).

Jordan doesn't say whether the missing name was sold during the option period, or whether the missing name was sold after the option period when it became apparent they could not come to terms on the mode of payment. He also doesn't post the exact terms of the contract, which might contain a controlling provision, nor does he specify in what jurisdiction the contract was made, or where the parties were. Any one of these, or other, missing facts could be outcome determinative. However, Jordan's age has nothing to do with whether or not there was a contract.

 

[Steen]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"First off, the contract would as far as I know be null, becuase you cannot enter a binding contract."

No. This is one of my pet-peeve popular legal misconceptions.

J, that is good to know. I am not sure why I thought that in the first place. I think I have heard it so many times that it's imprinted in my head.

Jordan, .. why the hell are you drawing up contracts that YOU cannot be held responsible for ... that is fraud in itself ... in my mind!

I doubt that he knew you were underage, and imo, its unethical, and I am not sure if illegal (J would know :-D )

theres nothing i can do anyways..

DO NOTHING.
I don't personally think its agood idea to sign these things, but what do I know :-D

 

[jberryhill]

"I am not sure why I thought that in the first place."

It's a common misconception. Many folks have a hard time with the idea that minors are people and have pretty much the same rights as everyone else.

The voidability of contracts by minors is one reason why many businesses will not contract with minors. There are statutes in various places that carve out exceptions for institutions like banks, so that minors can open and manage accounts and the banks can rely on treating them like any other customer. There is also a special status for "emancipated minors", such as self-supporting orphans who, for various reasons, are treated as their own parent.

One interesting question here is that at least some registrars, mindful of the voidability of contracts by minors, require majority as a condition of the domain name registration contract. If that was the case with the registrar here, then it is worth chewing on whether a contract to transfer the domain names to a minor is void or voidable due to the fact that it would operate to cause a breach or fraud in the resulting registration to the minor.

Do you remember those "record clubs" that used to offer a certain number of records for a token fee upon contracting to buy more records at the "club price" over a specified period of time? There was at least one of those schemes that took a bath over the resulting flood of minors who obtained a bunch of records on the cheap and then breached the committment to buy more. There wasn't a thing that could be done about it.

By and large, though, it is young people who get the short end of the stick in many commercial transactions, because of the large number of scams that one only learns about in the school of hard knocks or by having exposure to others who graduated from that school.

IMO, there's nothing inherently unethical about a well-intentioned minor entering into contracts. But less well-intentioned minors who are aware of their ability to void such contracts can be dangerous.

 

[NameTower]

hmmm ok
ill be back later and will post some details on our discussions on the agreement and transaction

it was nothing signed however he wrote up a "contract" as he called it to which i ageed to follow.

 

[Domagon]

Nope.

Next time, be ready to buy and promptly make payment...

...or for a large deal where you need to buy right away, but also want to hedge against making a bad decision, consider an "Option" agreement in which you pay a sum of money for "right" to buy the domain(s) in a particular period of time...such agreements though are risky, unless you are dealing with an entity that's trustworthy or a large company that has much assets you can go after if they break the deal.

In regards to PayPal...anyone who accepts PayPal for a domain name selling for more than say $100 is nuts...

Here's why...a buyer using PayPal makes payment, waits until domain name is transferred, and then disputes the transaction - claims their account was hacked, product/service didn't perform as promised, or worst in regards to having little recourse, is the buyer will claim they never received any product/service...

...and it can even get worse than that, since the buyer may then do a "charge back" on their credit card, thus likely forcing PayPal to deduct the amount from the seller's PayPal account - not enough in there...no problem, next they likely will hit the seller's bank account (if they provided PayPal with that info), and then if that fails PayPal will zap their credit card for remaining amount plus additional fees and penalities, and if money is still owed, assuming the amount is large, PayPal may then resort to sending the debt to collections...

Many folks who accept money for expensive items through PayPal have no idea how easy it is for folks to scam them until it's too late.

In short, while in your particular situation the seller may have been using the "I don't accept PayPal" as a smokescreen, the truth is they are correct to be concerned since many people get scammed through PayPal and often lose their product/service and their money too!

Ron

 

[jberryhill]

"it was nothing signed however he wrote up a "contract" as he called it to which i ageed to follow."

A "contract" can be all kinds of agreements, whether or not they are written, signed, oral, or anything else.

"He gave me until a certain date to make my decision"

Okay, and what did you promise or give him in return for his promise to keep the domain names available until that date?

If your position is that he was obligated to keep the offer open for the stated period of time, but that you did not have to do anything during that time, I would wonder what it was you believe obligated him to keep the offer open.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by valuenames
In regards to PayPal...anyone who accepts PayPal for a domain name selling for more than say $100 is nuts...

Do you speak from experience of being burnt, value? Or is this just heresay?

I'm asking because I have bought names worth much more than that, with paypal, and no problems.

 

[Domagon]

Originally posted by mole
Do you speak from experience of being burnt, value? Or is this just heresay?

I'm asking because I have bought names worth much more than that, with paypal, and no problems.

I've personally never lost any money through PayPal back when I *used* to use it before I experienced problems, but I know of people, who have not be so lucky, that have experienced expensive PayPal "problems".

Just because you have been lucky, doesn't mean it can't happen to you.

Check out http://www.paypalsucks.com/ , do some searches on Google, and of course log into PayPal when you have few free hours and read and examine all the various provisions buried within PayPal's various agreements that you have agreed to...it's an eye opener!

Ron

 

[NameTower]

Originally posted by jberryhill
If your position is that he was obligated to keep the offer open for the stated period of time, but that you did not have to do anything during that time, I would wonder what it was you believe obligated him to keep the offer open. [/B]

as it was a mutual agreement between the two of us..

 

[jberryhill]

"as it was a mutual agreement between the two of us.."

The key word in that sentence is "mutual". Just because two people agree on something does not mean they have a contract. There has to be some sort of mutuality of obligation - that is, you each have to do something (or refrain from something you are entitled to do). You are saying that it was a "mutual agreement" that he should keep the offer open in exchange for you doing nothing. You are not saying what it was *you* were supposed to do.

A unilateral promise is not a contract.

 

[NameTower]

i was supposed to verify that the transaction could be completed within the timeline..

that is why it was in place