At no point was it implied (nor explicitly said) that I was any kind of neutral third party therefore no money was taken under false pretenses.
To say that money was taken under false pretenses requires you to *assume* what *others* are going to *assume* when taking part of a trade.
To say that money was taken under false pretenses requires you to *assume* what *others* are going to *assume* when taking part of a trade.
By the very definition of escrow, and the common definition used on this forum, it indeed is implied that an escrow is a "neutral third party." You know that's how the law (and logic) generally work, right?
It's not a rational argument to say: In spite of the dictionary definition and commonly accepted use of the word "escrow," it is fair to assume that one that seeks the services of an "escrow" is not seeking a "neutral third party." You are the one that is incorrectly assuming, in the face of customary language and practice.
