BST etiquette am I wrong

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bigfanNY

Your a lawyer you understand that a threat of legal action with no intent to follow up is just wrong. I gave you my word I will follow up in court. That's not a threat.

Also thank you for clarification on the fact that although
I was not the first to inquire about the card. I was the first to say I will take it.
That is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that saying " I will take it " means I am committed to buying the card. And you disagree. And claim another layer of conformation is nesacery.

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

My vote for best post in the thread. I will also be waiting to see court papers to settle the this.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So, if you do actually file in court, that would mean you were not threatening and you weren't lying.

If you don't actually file in court, you were both. I'd love to see the court filings updated to this thread. My guess is, the whole thing will be a big waste of your time. But at least it would settle the "threat" and "lying" questions.

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

We don't even know Cody's full name do we? No, he's not suing him. And much as I think he was in the right here at least until the aftermath, he would certainly lose. There was no contract to be breached.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by G1911

He's surely not actually doing it, but even if he did that doesn't make it not a threat. Following through on the threatened action does not mean that then retroactively there was no threat. Lots of people are threatened with things that then happen. Following through on the harm, injury or danger does not mean the threat didn't happen. This is quite a novel concept that it's not a threat if you then do the thing you are threatening to do. Even if he is so mad that he actually tries to sue this guy and gets laughed out of court before it gets anywhere, he did in fact threaten to take it to court. 'It's not a threat, it's a promise' is just some tough guy posturing bullshit from angry people.

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I agree, plus, you eloquently proved, by his own words, that he lied when he said he didn't say something he clearly did. So these issues are already settled. But after all these discussions, with lawyer input, it would be interesting to see an actual court make a ruling.

Then when these discussions come up, we could all cite bigfanNY vs. Cody77 as precedent.

In the recent thread that was somewhat similar, it was generally decided that a seller could choose to not do business with someone if they had reason. In retrospect, it looks like this seller is glad he didn't do business with this guy. At least, the seller is saying he never will in the future.

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by G1911

Hopefully one of the parties will let us know the trial date, courthouse and which courtroom. I'll bring some popcorn.

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by jayshum

Where would a case like this need to be filed? It looks like one party is in NJ and the other is in CO.

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not a lawyer, but this seems like small claims court to me.

But I guess there’s always the question of which one.

One internet non transaction is not going to make Cody subject to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey.

[bigfanNY]

As I said I will update down the road.