Topic: Verification is a wannabe scammer. (Read 2145 times)

I completely agree with what you guys said, I damaged my own trust, and that is my fault, not anyone elses.
It was my fault for believing the guy saying he wanted to do good business.

This account will NEVER be in control of anyone else besides me from now on, I too have learned my lesson from this.
I just want to clear out the air and let everyone know that I had messages on the entire time, and I checked them right after I got home and I saw TECSHARE's message. So I was completely aware of what was happening.

Cheers, and thank you guys.

This is pretty much my conclusion. Verification should probably just be happy Niann has no interest in having him sent to prison. Requesting loans as another person for $9000 is enough to get you jail time in most countries. As far as Niann being a "shop" he was providing a service, so its not as if it could be returned for a refund. 

i must admit as english is not my native english i dont fully understand your link; but i tried.

AFAIK we agree that Niann does not have to pay back beacuse of the "damaged" user-account (btw who wrote the first neg-trust? Niann or Verification)?
imho it doesnt matter who made it public, because the scam action by verification in itself is the damage.

for our other discussion:i can only say as far as german law goes, there a two possibilites:

 - contract-law (B2B only): you have to explicit write down what happens if one party breaches the contract. otherwise the contract is just void and stopped in its current state (means: if the payment is already made he can keep it, if not he wont get it).

 - customer buying something in an online store from a company:
the company has to give back the money if the customer comes back before two weeks. the only reason why the company can refuse to pay back is if the good is damaged

i dont know what happens in a customer2customer trade or if there are differences. in many cases german courts said that any ebay-seller is a shop (even if he just sells one item) - so i guess(!) we could say Niann acted as a company or store in this case.

btw the same is different for lending: in this case Niann could go after user verification to get what its account is worth (i've sold a hero account for about 1BTC so maybe he has even a claim for more)

No. the agreement was not resolved mutually. Verification VIOLATED the agreement (ie broke the contract) meaning it is void, and he has no protections under it.

"Any kind of contract may be considered broken ("breached") once one party unconditionally refuses to perform under the contract as promised, regardless of when performance is supposed to take place. This unconditional refusal is known as a "repudiation" of a contract.

Once one party to a contract indicates--either through words or actions--that it's not going to perform its contract obligations, the other party can immediately claim a breach of contract (failure to perform under the contract) and seek remedies such as payment. This is sometimes called an anticipatory breach of contract. Read on to learn more about the concepts of repudiation and anticipatory breach of contract. (For more information on disputes involving breach of contract, see Nolo's article Breach of Contract: Material Breach.)"

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/breach-of-contract-anticipatory-breach-32653.html

I didn't make any statement about the actual deal. I just responded to the claim that Verification damaged the trust of the account. My view on it is that Niann damaged their trust themselves.

I don't really feel like making a statement on the actual agreement or whether it was violated by any party simply because I don't know the details. Also I feel it is unlikely that Verification and Niann will find a compromise that will settle this issue no matter how "lawyering" anyone does.

no, because if the agreement is void the payment has to be given back.

its the same with returning a good you dont like back to store and requesting back your money (at least this works where i live... dont know about other countries)

the only way for the "store" to not repay is if the good is damaged.

This whole line of reasoning is irrelevant. These two made an agreement. Verification violated it. Therefore he has no more rights under that agreement correct?

ok looks like i lose my money. enjoy the money Niann hope it helps you to buy something that will take you out of the hell when u die. see you

Regardless, lending out your account is bad for trust. Saying that the damage is done only when someone else published that is silly.

Of course, Niann was placed between a rock and hard place because someone else used their account in a way they didn't approve of... After that their choice was to either make it known that they rent out their account or risk being linked to some $9000 dollar loans.

Please some serious response .. I lost all my money on hes hand ? so i'm the one who is scammed here ? its all alright but im not liyng and i got the complete conversation.

s/lawyer/grow/ up

Belive me i just talkt with this guy TECHSHARE AND SOMEONE ELSE WHO I KNOW IS A KNOWN SCAMMER CHRISSLOPEZ about a PAYPAL TRANSACTION that I WASNT GOING TO MADE.

All I want to know is should i never log in again here ? I'm going to get paid back ? or what ? please niann reply .Im not liyng but i feel rapped for 200 usd that was all my money i dont understand how doesnt anyone belive if i wanted to keep the account by changing the info i would. when he asked my what happened i did tell but he blocked me. Please what should i do now ?

he made it only public because he wanted to make others aware of a scammer...
thats nice of him. nobody (except maybe mods) knows how many people he contacted and asked for a loan

So trying to acquire fraudulent loans isn't damage? Lets not forget the order of events here. It may not have been very smart, but it is not against the rules (that I know of). Under the terms of the agreement between the 2 of them, he was first to violate the agreement.

Yes  i did.  was able to do anything but not take a loan, whats wrong ? I didnt break any of the ToC of the deal he kept all my money on the accounts. No problems calling my a scammer or anything such as it but i want my money and i will stay away of this for my entire life. This is not cool guys. I totally understand that he felt i was going to scam but I WASNT

Niann damaged his own account by lending it out for money. You can't blame anyone else for it.

my car sample changed my mind and i think you are right now.
i would go even that far to say that he HAD damaged Nianns account because its now public knowledge that he will lend out his account for money

did you wrote that:
Of course I will ID myself with no issues, the amount i need complete in FIAT is $9000 ( A lot of money ) The repayment is about 6 months giving back a 7% of the amount,
?

you damaged his account because its now public knowledge that he is willing to lend it out for money. if i would make a bigger deal with him (never had before) i would double-check

Actually it does count, not only by forum rules but by local law. Additionally this distinction is important because it is how contract law is ruled (technically what their agreement was, although informal).  He did in fact have use of the account for 12 hours and potentially caused damages by requesting fraudulent loans under his name after explicitly being told loans were not allowed.  If you rent a room and you trash the place, and leave the landlord is not obligated to pay you back, because you violated your lease by damaging the residence. Niann honored the agreement until Verification chose to break it by attempting to acquire a large loan under someone else's username. IMO that seems to me that in this case under established contract law Verification violated the agreement and no longer has any rights under it.

note: I posted the quoted conversation above in its entirety.

I didnt request any real loan, the aggrement was not taking any loan, if he shows the whole conversation , i had it too, i can do it about the mtgo account he said it was locked and he changed the passwords, i understand u felt tecshare im a scamemr but im not IT WAS ALL MY MONEY i work everyfking day to get one of this guys like Niann who i supposed it was trustwhorty person and it wasnt. He didnt honor the deal , and  i did since i didnt take any loan it wasnt dont ask to  dont take any loan. I GOT PROOF OF IT. CMON IM GOING TO SEE MY MONEY BACK OR WHAT ? seems like ur helping him to keep my money I DIDNT WANT TO SOUND LIKE AN SCAM CUZ IT WASNT.


LOL AT THE REPLYS OF COURSE I WAS ABLE TO KEPT THE ACCOUNT AND I DIDNT SO WHATS GOING ON ? I DIDNT WANT TO SCAM ANYONE.

HE'S ACCOUNT IS NOT DAMAGED.