Topic: Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett - page 5. (Read 39244 times)

Has this debate actually gone on for 20 pages...whether or not to subject someone the unbearable penalty of a "scammer" tag on this teeny corner of the internet?

I agree. This is not common mistake. This is the bank making one mistake and the borrower making a different mistake.

If this mistake didn't cause the loss of the deposit, what do you think did?!

Patrick didn't loan funds "to the wrong person". Patrick followed his business model. Patrick didn't do anything his investors didn't ask him to do.

There was no other question Patrick could have asked, no other investigation he could have done, no magic word he could have said, no wand he could have waved. If we could learn at least one thing from this fiasco, it's that high returns always come with high risks. The odds that you will be the one person who finds the exception to this tried and true rule are vanishingly small, and thus, it is axiomatically true. His investors recklessly and foolishly accepted that his business model was sensible and said so to him, a statement he is as entitled to rely on as they are to rely on any statements *he* makes.

I agree, that's why I never argued that. The fact that they made precisely the same mistake he did, where that mistake was directly the cause of the loss, and that neither party would have entered into the contract but for the mistake makes them partly responsible. (And, in the specific case of MP, specifically agreed with the mistake.)

No, they made completely different mistakes.

Right, but I reasonably relied on a factual claim by my doctor which turned out to be false. The factual claim Patrick made was true.

Patrick didn't make any kind of promise that wasn't perfectly valid. If you say "X because Y", you are promising Y, not X. Patrick said "X because Y", and Y was correct. However, X did not follow from Y. You can't promise that a conclusion follows from a premise.

And in this case, MP was better situated than PH to catch the mistake in reasoning. MP was specifically looking for indirect Pirate risk, PH was not.

Because the unfairness was caused by pirate which rendered the lendees incapable who themselves are responsible for the unfairness through lying to  Patrick, making it impossible for Patrick to repay his debt except through his personal assets. Patrick then renders it unfair for depositors by claiming coverage of the deposit and not reimbursing .

If I take a large business loan for expanding the operation and lose my funds because someone steals it, it is not my fault and it hinders my ability to repay. But since I'm operating as myself, I personally owe that money because I promised it. I cannot try to void part of the loan on behalf I lost the funds.

I strictly promised the bank to repay the business loan. I argued I had a good credit score and a stable business which would make me capable of repaying the loan providing a business plan detailing how I'd use the funds. But when the bank tells me those arguments are accepted to grant the loan, no party ever agrees the repayment promise is directly dependent on the arguments I offered to hold true and being sufficient. My business went down the drain because someone stole my funds putting me in serious debt. Yet I still owe the bank the funds because that's the only promise I made them. The arguments I gave were purely to convince them. Can I keep the assets I have left and default on the loan because those specific funds were stolen by the third party because I gave it to that third party?

The bank makes the mistake of believing the arguments to be sufficient to expect me to repay the loan.
I made the mistake of badly choosing who I'd then pay those funds to and gave them to the wrong individual which commits a financial fraud (accepting payment and not delivering anything in return.) I myself made the mistake that hinders the repayment of the loan, causing loss to the bank.

The mistake is far from being common. The depositor blindly believe Patrick can be expected to deliver based on his arguments. They put themselve in the situation, it was a mistake, but it does not cause the loss of the deposit being irrecoverable, just like you didn't cause the loss of the test's costs by accepting your doctor's claims.

The loss is caused to the depositor when Patrick loaned the funds to wrong person who then didn't pay him back, something over which the depositor had no control. Patrick bears the responsibility of making that mistake.

The mere fact that the depositor not making the mistake of giving Patrick the funds he asked for his business would have not enabled Patrick to make that loss does not make them responsible. Consider this: should a person making the mistake of handling over a knife to some shady individual asking for it to cook would place that personal equally responsible for the death of someone when said individual proceeds to kill somebody, because you enabled that murder? Both made the mistake to entrust something they shouldn't have to someone they did not really know, enabling a loss to someone (Financial to yourself in the first case or of someone else's life in the later). Both giving party made a mistake enabling something to happen by entrusting their property to someone else, which is a far different from the mistake of doing the mishandling creating the loss when you had no control of it.

When you accepted your doctor's claim, you enabled the loss by proceeding with the test which would have been impossible otherwise. But you did not cause it, the doctor did by promising you would not pay and then the insurer not paying as he expected, so he paid for the test since he promised you would not pay for it. I could argue you are just as responsible as Patrick's depositor who did not do due diligence in investigating before proceeding. Had you had investigated and called your insurer, you would have known the test was not covered and the doctor would not have to bear the loss.

The first makes a mistake which enables the situation to happen. The person who made the promise the other would incur no financial loss makes the actual mistakes which cause his own loss, regardless if he was mistaken on his external parties on which he base his promises (such as the doctor) or if those parties outright scammed him like for Patrick. The mistake is not a common one.

The only common decision is accepting the contract. Patrick's contract was a bad contract. He made lending mistake which caused him to lose the deposits. The contract in itself (That Patrick would be able to cover deposits and pay X%) did not cause the loss. The depositor should have known better than accept such a poor proposition placing himself in the situation. But ultimately Patrick's mishandling of the funds is the mistake which made the promise he offered impossible to hold and created that loss. Not that both entered the agreement and transaction which enabled the loss. The depositor made a mistake in accepting a bad offer but I currently remain with the conviction it is a different mistake that is not common.

I would have ZERO problem with that if Patrick came forward trying to find a compromise or offering to slowly refund deposits personally or attempted to at least try to renegotiate anything and showing he cannot current repay the debt. In which case I would call it a default on his debt because of inability to repay. But so far he remains silent and has done nothing to resolve the situation or shown his willingness to depart with any wealth to cover his debt. Hence why I believe he should be considered as a scammer until his debt is repaid or renegotiated or that he paid as much as he could possibly pay.

They don't have to make the same claim, they just have to both make the same mistake and that mistake has to be such that neither party would have agreed to the contract but for the mistake. In any event, in this specific case, MP did make the same claim. She said, to Patrick, "well that works".

If it's precisely the same risk misjudgment Patrick himself made, it's a common mistake.

Why would you knowingly choose an inequitable result when you don't have to? Why not choose a result that's fair for Patrick too? What is forcing you to knowingly be unfair? We're not a court of law (or the contract would be void for a dozen reasons, starting with usury) -- we're a pure system of equity and fairness.

--------------
Well indeed there is a double argument from Patrick

Patrick says that:

Doctor says that:

In Patrick case's, YES the depositors should have been VERY wary of the sub argument as it was fully disclosed because it was dubious that his claim is true. But it is not a common mistake because the depositor for Patrick or you with your doctor neither made any claim to the effect that what the other party claimed was factual and a requirement for the contract. They have to make the same claim.

--------------

As I stated, what was agreed upon and claimed by Patrick is that Patrick:
- Accept deposits
- Pay X% on deposit
- Can cover the deposits

The arguments are purely for convincing the other party as to why the party is confident in his claims he promised you and as to why you should proceed with what the party offers you (To make a deposit/To make the test). The arguments brought forward are not contractual clauses required for the contract to be valid. In either case, nor the Doctor or Patrick or you or the depositor say the claim will be executed IF the argument holds to be found true/sufficient to guarantee the promise. Which would then be a contractual clause that it is required if they insisted the claimed would be delivered upon IF another specific scenario holds to be true.

Arguments are purely a convincing mechanisms that even if true, do not guarantee the claim to be executable.

Suppose this:
A borrower wants to loan 20000$ at 14% yearly interest. The lender asks him why he should grant him the loan. The borrower arguments, without making false statements, that:
 - I have a good credit rating. (true)
 - I have a stable job. (true)
 - I have enough assets to cover the loan should problems arise. (true)

The lender answers by "fair enough, works for me, I'll grant you the loan". Yet the arguments do not make the clause that the borrower will repay true.

The borrower default on his debt and insist you share the loss on the premise that there is a common mistake because he did not lie and both expected his arguments to be true which they were and deemed sufficient to grant the loan/contract and that now the loss is irrecoverable, so the loss is to be shared. The borrower keep his current lifestyle and doesn't depart with his non-essential possession to pay his debt just as Patrick did although he said he could cover the deposit.


You would be able to void full responsibility on any contract's clauses if you ever made any argument that was true yet didn't guarantee the clauses because the other party was convinced by those arguments. (The other party never said those arguments were required to be true to execute the contract or were what guaranteed the promise made by the borrower. They merely agree to be convinced by those arguments.)

As you said, Mircea agreed with Patrick's reasoning. A bank might have agreed with the borrowers's reasoning. It does not imply that neither agree that the arguments absolutely makes the claim possible and is 100% correct all the time. Just that they were convinced that the borrowers could reasonably be expected to be able to deliver his claim based on those arguments.

If the borrower gave an extremely ridiculous argument that he could repay because "His dog is brown (True)", you wouldn't have made a common mistake. You would have put yourself in the situation. You would have been incredibly stupid to be convinced by such a statement. But you did not made a common mistake as per contract law. The borrower is fully obligated to repay the loan because that's what he claimed he would do repay it and neither party added a sub-clause that this repayment was directly dependent on "His dog being brown" making "Repayment of the loan" possible.

The people who gave Patrick his funds made a risk misjudgement when they got convinced by his arguments. They did not make a common mistake.

--------------

A common mistake requires both parties to make a factual claim to be considered a common mistake. Not one party making a claim and the other accepting the claim or accepting the arguments for that claim as convincing.

I gave an excellent example:
Buyer: I need cherries delivered in Washington. Can you deliver in Washington?
Supplier: Yes, I deliver anywhere in Washington.
Buyer: Perfect. *Pay's right away*
*Supplier imports cherries right away.*
Supplier: I have your cherries ready. What is your address?

Upon which the seller and the buyer realize the supplier is in the state of Washington and can only deliver there, and that the buyer lives in Washington D.C. and that the cherries would be impossible to deliver as planned considering the supplier's means to deliver which do not currently extend outside of the state of Washington.

There is common mistake when both parties made the claim to each other and each parties accepted it from each other, but the claim is not precise enough or is false for both. There is a common claim but also a common mistake as to what that premise making the contract executable means and it renders the contract impossible to execute as a result. There is no such common mistake in Patrick's case.

--------------

I stress again that I am in no way saying the depositors didn't make the mistake of more or less blindly listening to Patrick. I am in no way saying that they didn't put themselves in that situation by lending somewhat carelessly to someone they assumed to be trustable. Because they made that mistake and are now in this situation. This situation would hardly be enforceable in court in any case.

I am not shifting blame away from depositors or that they didn't make bad decisions. I am just stating that common mistake (as per contract law) does not apply and that Patrick is still contractually obliged to cover the deposits in full merely because he promised it. And that he should get a scammer tag until this case is resolved too because he's unwilling to depart with his current non-essential personal assets to cover his debt.

I am not stating that this situation is fair for Patrick or that depositor didn't commit any mistake or that the contract would be enforceable in courts (mostly because I agree with your argument about usury rates which renders the contract somewhat null to start with.) I am simply insisting that according to current laws in most jurisdiction, if the contract had not been invalid, he would fully own the deposits to depositor and common mistake would not be invokable.

Patrick made an apparent logical argument. Patrick said he'd have enough equity to cover his loans in the event of a Pirate default because his coins weren't deposited in BS&T. His only factual claim is that his loan portfolio wasn't in BS&T. That claim was *true*. Both parties made the mistake of concluding that this meant that the portfolio would have sufficient equity to cover a Pirate default. This wasn't due to any false claim but due to an incorrect chain of reasoning on which both parties *agreed*.

One can even argue that MP was in a better position to realize this problem than Patrick was. MP was specifically investigating the risk of indirect Pirate exposure. Patrick was not.

This case is totally different -- Patrick substantially explained the reason he reached the conclusion he did, gave all the information needed to verify it, and she agreed with his reasoning even though it was obviously incorrect. The whole point of the discussion was for MP to protect against indirect Pirate exposure and they agreed that if that Patrick had no direct Pirate exposure, that somehow meant there was no indirect exposure.

There wasn't a common mistake in that case at all. The doctor represented that he had knowledge that I didn't have that led him to conclude that the insurance would pay for it. I had no way to check his reasoning. The point of that example is to see that you can't stop at the contract -- because my prior agreement with the doctor made me responsible for any costs the insurance wouldn't pay, his false representation (one I had no way to check nor any reason to doubt) damaged me.

This case is totally different -- Patrick substantially explained the reason he reached the conclusion he did, gave all the information needed to verify it, and she agreed with his reasoning even though it was obviously incorrect. The whole point of the discussion was to protect against indirect Pirate exposure and they agreed that if that Patrick had no direct Pirate exposure, that somehow meant there was no indirect exposure.

You're in a two week old thread. Are you aware of this?

The scammer is NOT PAYING. Are you aware of this?

He split long ago. He is not answering for himself. Are you aware of this?

PS. I really hope the various scammers lurking this forum are keeping tabs on you idiots. I for sure am saving all this crap for the eventual complaints you might wish to make.

Ah, I see that now in that statement. He does not specifically claim his lendees are not invested in BS&T. Regardless of what Patrick claims, I still stand by the fact there was no common mistake on the premise only Patrick made the claim and that the depositor merely agreed that Patrick promised it, he did not also make the same claim, which would be required for a common mistake.

A bit old but still a good example:


Under your current arguments, Patrick would not have to give you your deposit back in full, because:
- He said the deposits would not be lost in case of BS&T default mainly because he has non BS&T investment which is apparently enough to cover those deposits. (He shows no proof of that and just states it to you.)
- You agreed to act upon that claim and proceed with it because you thought that was sufficient to guarantee the deposit.
- There was the common mistake that the deposits would not be lost, because Patrick had non BS&T investment which would be covering deposits if BS&T defaulted.
- Which was not the case because Patrick's non BS&T investment did not cover the deposits when BS&T defaulted.
- So the deposits' loss should be shared now that Patrick gave his loans based on the common belief that the non BS&T investment would be covering the deposits when BS&T defaulted.
- You both proceeded on the belief Patrick non BS&T investment would cover the deposits.

Under your current arguments, the doctor would not have had to pay you, because:
- He said you would not pay for the test in case you proceed with it because your insurance will apparently cover that cost. (He shows no proof of that and just states it to you.)
- You agreed to act upon that claim and proceed with it because you thought that was sufficient to not get to pay for the test.
- There was the common mistake that the test would not be paid for, because the insurance would pay for the test if you proceeded with it.
- Which was not the case because the insurance company did not pay it for you when you proceeded with the test.
- So the test's costs should be shared now that the doctor executed the test based on the common belief that the insurance would be pay the costs when you'd proceed with the test.
- You both proceeded on the belief the insurance would pay the costs.

The doctor's lawyer seems to agree with me about common mistake in contracts because your doctor ended up doing the opposite.

The depositors did not investigate if that was sufficient to guarantee deposits and took Patrick's claim for granted.
You did not investigate if your insurer would actually pay for it, yet you took your doctor's claim for granted.

Legally Patrick owes 100% of deposits for stating deposits would be covered on account of non BS&T investment prior to you accepting to deposit.

Legally your doctor owed you 100% the cost of the test for stating it would be payed for on account of your insurer paying for it prior to you accepting to do the test.

-------------

The only difference is that depositors decided to more or less blindly trust a stranger over the web over some much less realistic claim.

While the last statement is true (that if people didn't lend their money left and right without investigation, the Pirate fiasco would not have been possible), they did not cause the loss of Pirate running away with the funds. Pirate is solely responsible for that. Their tort is giving money left and right without thinking which is a completely different mistake than the one causing the damage.

I am IN NO WAY suggesting we should not blame people for unknowingly giving their money left and right without extensive investigation. I am simply stating that Patrick legally owes the full deposits as what he claimed to offer, regardless if the loss would have been impossible if people did not enter in poorly defined/investigated contracts. The mistake is not the same. Patrick's mistake created the loss to for the depositors. The depositors' mistake placed them in the situation, but did not directly cause the loss.

He absolutely did tell Mircea how he makes sure there's no exposure -- by not investing the coins he has on deposit in BS&T. I don't understand how you can quote that transcript and not see that Patrick is saying that he has more than enough assets in his portfolio to repay investors in the event of a BS&T default because his deposits are not invested in BS&T.

Had Mircea not made the same mistake Patrick did, she would have reasoned as follows: "I'm concerned about indirect Pirate exposure. That's why I'm asking Patrick where his funds are. He's not BS&T, yet I'm still worried about Pirate exposure, so obviously not investing in BS&T is not sufficient to protect against Pirate exposure."

Yet, instead, Mircea told Patrick "that works".

50% is kind of the default position when both sides make the same mistake and cause the same loss. However, it may be reasonable to adjust that. For example, if Patrick expected a greater share of the profits without having his own money at risk (remember, investors lose the use of their money while Patrick has it, he doesn't) then it's fair to make him bear a greater share of the loss.

If I recall right, he suggested something along those lines. You should find it rereading the thread.

Hi Joel,

Me again.

It seems that this debate is largely academic.

I'm happy to agree that both Patrick and his investors are responsible for the loss of his investors coins.

Seems to me though:

Investor is responsible for the loss of coins, therefore the coins are lost. A hard lesson they need to swallow.

Patrick is also responsible for the loss of coins. However they weren't his coins. Therefore he should suffer some kind of loss.

Would you suggest then that Patrick should pay 50% of the coins back to be morally discharged from his obligation? Is that what you mean by both parties sharing responsibility?

Can you prove that it was impossible to not be exposed to Pirate? It certainly could be possible to not be so and Patrick made a claim he was not. It's like me saying I trust someone to be honest, and upon realization he was not, you claim it was 100% impossible that person could be honest all along. Someone certainly can be honest, which might not end up being true. Patrick could well have not been exposed to Pirate, which did not end up being true.


Just like someone who says he will deliver X for 100$ because he'll deliver X for 100$. He doesn't argue about it. He CLAIMS it because that's what he offers to provide. If someone pays him up, the other party must provide what he offered.


Are you serious? He did not tell Mircea how he makes sure there's no exposure. He says there is no exposure. He straightforward claims to not be. No explanation or proof given.


Ok then, so you say Patrick says X because A and B were he only make a representation that "X because A", and A was true.

Patrick says:
(X) You can withdraw anytime because (A) I have enough assets to cover deposits because (B) I am not exposed to BS&T

(A) cannot be true if (B) is not also true. He made both claims: That he had enough assets to cover the deposits and that he was not exposed to BS&T. There is a chain of claims Patrick makes regarding what he offers. That any part of it is false does not make the depositor at fault of a common mistake.

A common mistake applies when BOTH party make the same claim which renders the contract impossible to execute and producing the loss. Not when one party accepts the contract based on what the other party claims to offer when what the that other party offer is false. A common mistake cannot originate from a single side of the parties. Both must have made the claim. Not one side making the claim and the other accepting it.

I have yet to see Mircea make the claim that Patrick was not exposed to Pirate. He never told Patrick: Your loaning business is free of Pirate debt." Only Patrick made that claim. Mircea agreed that this is what he wanted delivered. Not that it was true nor delivered.


Please avoid turning things in variables statement before stating that a specific variable is false without further arguments. There is no way to know what you assume each variable to be and thus make any knowledgeable decision that it is false or right because you didn't identify properly what you are talking about. I do not see any B in my example. My initial example was "X because A": (X) You can withdraw anytime because (A) I am not exposed to Pirate.

Exactly, which is the same thing that happened here. In a discussion about *indirect* Pirate risk, Patrick said there wasn't any because he had no *direct* Pirate exposure. It is impossible for that argument to be true.

Read the transcript, especially the "because" that I bolded. At no time does Patrick say or imply that he has any special private reason to think there was no Pirate exposure. He argues that he has no Pirate exposure *because* he has no direct Pirate exposure.

What? In the transcript, Patrick tells her how:

Aug 10 08:10:17   in the event BS&T goes bust, I have more than enough assets to cover that
Aug 10 08:10:41   mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T

Quote

Mircea never had all that information you claim both party had. There is secret information. (Mircea is under no obligation to scour the forums, the web, or even the world, to find and verify what Patrick did not disclose for Patrick to have to respect his contractual claims. You could blame that he didn't pursue that information if you want, but that doesn't void the contract or make Mircea the partial cause of the loss to pirate exposure.)

It's right up in the transcript -- Patrick said he would have sufficient assets in his loan portfolio to cover obligations "mainly because the 15,500 coins I hold on deposit are not invest in BS&T".

Quote

Let me reformulate with a because:

Buyer - I want to make a deposit to receive interests. Can you pay back anytime if Pirate defaults?
Seller - Yes you can withdraw anytime because I have no pirate exposure in my loans.
Buyer - That works with me, here's the deposit.
Seller - I am actually exposed to pirate and cannot deliver the deposit back. We should share the loss since we both thought I was not exposed. I would like to pay you back but hey, common mistake, I can't pay for all that loss! You're just as responsible as me for not lending to the correct persons, causing the pirate exposure, because you believed there was none, causing me to lend incorrectly!(False, the seller made the error of promising something he did not have. The buyer did not cause that loss.)

The difference here is that this "because" is based on incorrect information. Patrick's "because" was based on correct information. Make it "You can withdraw anytime because two plus two is four" and you have something more comparable. That's a true factual claim followed by invalid reasoning based on that claim.

Quote

Buyer - I want a washing machine. Can you provide one?
Seller - Yes I can provide one because I have a washing machine I packaged in this box.
Buyer - That works with me, here's the payment.
Seller - Sorry, it seems I actually had a dryer packaged in that box and not a washing machine. Since I already shipped, we should share the lost on that cost since we made that contract on the premise I was able to provide a washing machine and both believed that, while I could not provide it. I'd like to reimburse you for that but hey, common mistake, I can't pay for all that loss! You're just as responsible for the shipping costs for believing I had a washing machine, causing me to ship the dryer to you in error! (False, the seller made the error of promising something he did not have. The buyer did not cause that loss.)

Your example is "X because A and B" where A and B are false but X does follow from A and B. The buyer relies on the seller's representation of A and B which turns out to be false. In this case, it was "X because A and B" where A and B are true but X does not follow from A and B. In that case, there is no factual representation of one party that the other party relies on.

There's a huge difference between these two categories of cases. Patrick didn't make any representation of fact that the other party relied on. The only representation of fact in "X because A" is A, and A was true.

No, because Patrick did not say "I only loan to people who avoid Pirateat40", he said "The money is not invested in Pirate":

The equivalent of claiming that there's no such parts included. In this specific example at least it is what Patrick claimed. No pirate exposure.

Regardless of the reasons brought forward by the seller, the seller said "yes" in both case that he'd deliver something exempt from something. The buyer could be blamed for being incredibly credulous in what he believes when he's told something such as "It's impossible because I avoid it" if it had been the case, but he's still not at cause for the loss.

Namworld your washing machine example is slightly off:

Buyer - I want a washing machine that doesn't use any Pirateat40 parts . Can you provide one?
Seller - Yes I can provide one because I only stock brands that avoid Pirateat40 parts I have a washing machine I packaged in this box.

The washing machine breaks down a few months later and the Buyer discovers Pirateat40 parts inside.

*Pirateat40 parts have a mixed reputation for quality with many pointing to their absurdly low price as a prime indication that they are shoddy parts while a few review sites give the parts great reviews, but they have been used in huge quantities by washing machine brands with no public acknowledgment

That example has an explanation which is pretty much impossible to hold true to explain why there's no exposure (I prayed). That there was no exposure might hold true however (I have no exposure). It is neither an explanation as in your example: Patrick does not say "I have no exposure to pirate because X Y Z". He simply makes a straightforward claim to it.

Mircea does not know and he's neither told how Patrick makes sure there is no pirate exposure. Mircea never had all that information you claim both party had. There is secret information. (Mircea is under no obligation to scour the forums, the web, or even the world, to find and verify what Patrick did not disclose for Patrick to have to respect his contractual claims. You could blame that he didn't pursue that information if you want, but that doesn't void the contract or make Mircea the partial cause of the loss to pirate exposure.)

--------------------
Let me reformulate with a because:

Buyer - I want to make a deposit to receive interests. Can you pay back anytime if Pirate defaults?
Seller - Yes you can withdraw anytime because I have no pirate exposure in my loans.
Buyer - That works with me, here's the deposit.
Seller - I am actually exposed to pirate and cannot deliver the deposit back. We should share the loss since we both thought I was not exposed. I would like to pay you back but hey, common mistake, I can't pay for all that loss! You're just as responsible as me for not lending to the correct persons, causing the pirate exposure, because you believed there was none, causing me to lend incorrectly!(False, the seller made the error of promising something he did not have. The buyer did not cause that loss.)

Buyer - I want a washing machine. Can you provide one?
Seller - Yes I can provide one because I have a washing machine I packaged in this box.
Buyer - That works with me, here's the payment.
Seller - Sorry, it seems I actually had a dryer packaged in that box and not a washing machine. Since I already shipped, we should share the lost on that cost since we made that contract on the premise I was able to provide a washing machine and both believed that, while I could not provide it. I'd like to reimburse you for that but hey, common mistake, I can't pay for all that loss! You're just as responsible for the shipping costs for believing I had a washing machine, causing me to ship the dryer to you in error! (False, the seller made the error of promising something he did not have. The buyer did not cause that loss.)

----------------

Yet again, he's not agreeing the statement to be true, he's just accepting that claim as what the other party must deliver as per contract to honor it and that this offered clause satisfies him. The seller is responsible for honoring the clause he promised whether he willingly or mistakenly offered something he could not. Otherwise the seller cannot require compensation/keep funds because he did not honor his contractual claims.

Read the transcript, particularly the "because" that I bolded. Patrick says that he could make repayments in the event of a BS&T default because his deposits are not invested in BS&T and MP agrees that that works. But it doesn't work. That is, they both agreed to something that was logically invalid because it ignored indirect Pirate exposure. Since this conversation was *about* indirect Pirate exposure, that both parties forgot about it is inexcusable.

The problem is that your claim doesn't include a "because" or a "that works". In your example, one party is saying that they know they don't have Pirate exposure based on secret knowledge not shared and the other party has no way to investigate the validity of the logic. Consider:


Buyer - I want to make a pirate free exposure deposit.
Seller - I am not exposed to pirate because I prayed and God told me I wasn't.
Buyer - I agree with your reasoning and am now willing to make a deposit.

Very different.

You can't analogize "I have secret information that I will not share with you that leads me to believe X", where you have no choice but to rely on the other party, and "X is true because of facts A, B, and C", where you have all the information the other party does and agree with invalid reasoning. Here it's especially inexcusable because MP's whole purpose was to avoid indirect Pirate exposure and yet the possibility of indirect Pirate exposure was ignored! Both sides made precisely the same mistake. It's actually ironic.

Why do you think MP had every right to rely on Patrick's reasoning (that he can repay from loan assets if Pirate defaults because he hasn't invested in BS&T) yet Patrick had no right to rely on MP's reasoning (that this works)? It's precisely the same reasoning in both cases, and each side would not have entered into the agreement but for their agreement with that invalid reasoning.