Without repayment date, I am just gonna tell you I will pay back after one thousand years, then you can GTFO. There is no condition upon which the mods can judge if TF defaults, otherwise his creditors can ask for him to pay back after only one minute as well.
THe mods standard has been consistent, every scammer I have seen so far, which has pulled off something similar, has failed to comply with something that is phrased in a unambiguous way(e.g., in the MNW case, MNW's condition is that Pirate defaults, which is failing to make a payout at a time Pirate promised).
Topic: theymos: I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements. (Read 1191 times)
That it generally does not fall under the category of negotiable instrument does not necessarily mean it is not enforceable.
As I said before: Purposeful and malicious default should be covered under the legal margin of an IOU.
As I said before: Purposeful and malicious default should be covered under the legal margin of an IOU.
I agree that the "IOU" could certainly be enforceable under the right circumstances..but by whom? And how do you propose proving a "malicious default"?
Show the court a print out of TFs thread for instance.
That it generally does not fall under the category of negotiable instrument does not necessarily mean it is not enforceable.
As I said before: Purposeful and malicious default should be covered under the legal margin of an IOU.
As I said before: Purposeful and malicious default should be covered under the legal margin of an IOU.
I agree that the "IOU" could certainly be enforceable under the right circumstances..but by whom? And how do you propose proving a "malicious default"?
Quote
Investopedia explains 'IOU'
The informal nature of an IOU means that there may be some uncertainty about whether it is a binding contract, and the legal remedies available to the lender, as opposed to formal contracts like a promissory note or bond indenture. Because of this uncertainty, an IOU is generally not a negotiable instrument.
The informal nature of an IOU means that there may be some uncertainty about whether it is a binding contract, and the legal remedies available to the lender, as opposed to formal contracts like a promissory note or bond indenture. Because of this uncertainty, an IOU is generally not a negotiable instrument.
That it generally does not fall under the category of negotiable instrument does not necessarily mean it is not enforceable.
As I said before: Purposeful and malicious default should be covered under the legal margin of an IOU.
First it's "IOUs don't constitute contacts", now suddenly it's "not even a IOU"... what is it? Consistency?
TF was in control of the ripple account, he knew what would happen and deceived the participants purposefully he is responsible. The issuing of IOUs is explained in the ripple intro.
TF was in control of the ripple account, he knew what would happen and deceived the participants purposefully he is responsible. The issuing of IOUs is explained in the ripple intro.
IOU's aren't binding. Skip the Yahoo! Answers nonsense and find a better source.
I'll help out:
Quote
Investopedia explains 'IOU'
The informal nature of an IOU means that there may be some uncertainty about whether it is a binding contract, and the legal remedies available to the lender, as opposed to formal contracts like a promissory note or bond indenture. Because of this uncertainty, an IOU is generally not a negotiable instrument.
The informal nature of an IOU means that there may be some uncertainty about whether it is a binding contract, and the legal remedies available to the lender, as opposed to formal contracts like a promissory note or bond indenture. Because of this uncertainty, an IOU is generally not a negotiable instrument.
On top of that, the Ripple Payment Wiki publicly states:
Quote
The IOU metaphor is only used because it is easy to visualize and explain the apparent functionality. In actuality, Ripple does not use IOUs internally. Instead, Ripple maintains a list of balances between parties for the various currencies.
Turns out, those "IOUs" can also be used as a currency of their own. Nowhere on the Ripple website or Wiki have they discussed what happens when someone reneges. My guess is that it's about the same as what happens here...you get labeled a 'scammer' and life goes on.
In the end, Theymos is correct. The IOU is not contractually binding.
IOU is not a binding agreement, ask any lawyer and they will tell you. Specifically, IOU has no repayment date so it's almost always impossible to be enforced.
Then why does rocketlawyer.com have a "IOU form"?
A missing due date doesn't necessary mean it's unenforceable, especially if the debtor specifically says "I'm not gonna pay you back"
IOU is not a binding agreement, ask any lawyer and they will tell you. Specifically, IOU has no repayment date so it's almost always impossible to be enforced.
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Yahoo answers isn't a legit source
The opinion of theymos isn't either.
I trust him a lot more than I would trust anything on Yahoo answers.
I'm not going to go any further into this as I don't really want to derail the thread.
Yes, but coming from a staff member that holds about as much weight as Theymos coming out himself and saying "i'm trustworthy"
I sent 1 BTC between two of my accounts:
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
Again it does, in the ripple intro. The ripple ledger consists of IOUs which are the contract(s).
It didn't. As I said I went through the process earlier step by step, NOWHERE it said anything about IOU, contract, payment, interest, due date, etc.
I sent 1 BTC between two of my accounts:
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
Again it does, in the ripple intro. The ripple ledger consists of IOUs which are the contract(s).
First it's "IOUs don't constitute contacts", now suddenly it's "not even a IOU"... what is it? Consistency?
TF was in control of the ripple account, he knew what would happen and deceived the participants purposefully he is responsible. The issuing of IOUs is explained in the ripple intro.
Here is a "IOU Form" on the site of Law Firm: http://www.rocketlawyer.com/document/iou-form.rl
TF was in control of the ripple account, he knew what would happen and deceived the participants purposefully he is responsible. The issuing of IOUs is explained in the ripple intro.
Here is a "IOU Form" on the site of Law Firm: http://www.rocketlawyer.com/document/iou-form.rl
Huh? I am consistent! I asked you where is the contract. So far you have failed to provide one. Please refer to the post #2:
Could you reference the contract? The only contract I see is here:
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
That's between Opencoin and whoever using ripple.
Here is the ledger of TF: https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Here is the ledger of TF: https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
I sent 1 BTC between two of my accounts:
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
b) Nowhere it said that I actually supposed to send real BTC.
c) It sent money and my balance magically became 1 BTC.
There is no contract.
First it's "IOUs don't constitute contacts", now suddenly it's "not even a IOU"... what is it? Consistency?
TF was in control of the ripple account, he knew what would happen and deceived the participants purposefully he is responsible. The issuing of IOUs is explained in the ripple intro.
Here is a "IOU Form" on the site of Law Firm: http://www.rocketlawyer.com/document/iou-form.rl
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Yahoo answers isn't a legit source
The opinion of theymos isn't either.
I trust him a lot more than I would trust anything on Yahoo answers.
I'm not going to go any further into this as I don't really want to derail the thread.
That's between Opencoin and whoever using ripple.
Here is the ledger of TF: https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Here is the ledger of TF: https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
I sent 1 BTC between two of my accounts:
a) Nowhere it said that I actually sent an IOU.
b) Nowhere it said that I actually supposed to send real BTC.
c) It sent money and my balance magically became 1 BTC.
There is no contract.
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Yahoo answers isn't a legit source
The opinion of theymos isn't either.
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Yahoo answers isn't a legit source
Could you reference the contract? The only contract I see is here:
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
That's between Opencoin and whoever using ripple.
Here is the ledger of TF: https://ripple.com/graph/#rH3bZsvVUhzugvcYuJVoSYCEMHkfK6wHNv
Yahoo answers tends to agree with me:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121206181148AAUHiy0
Could you reference the contract? The only contract I see is here:
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
https://ripple.com/terms/
Theymos is correct about it, it isn't binding.
I don't recognize Ripple IOUs as binding agreements.
I don't know if you guys are following the TradeFortress vs Ripple drama, but as it turned out it raises the issue of how to threat ripple IOUs in the future.
Now theymos made the above statement, which I must say I have a problem with.
It is self contradictory to use ripple and at the same time not recognize IOUs as a form of contract. I would like to have a detailed explanation of how and why anybody thinks Ripple IOUs do not represent a binding agreement.
Was that just for the case of TFs "game" or in general? Should ripple users post a new forum thread "validating" their thrust relationship each time they enter into one?
I also see a potential conflict of interest since TF payed for advertising the ripplescam.org site on the Forum, and theymos taking partisan.
Jump to: