'Tired' Carl Sagan Fan Sells Wormhole.com To Crypto Giant Jump for $50K After Lawsuit (decrypt.co) 120
An anonymous reader shares a report: The realm of physics offers the exciting possibility of "wormholes" that could let us collapse space and time. But here on Earth, most of us are subject to more mundane realities -- including that the rich and powerful usually get what they want. Dick Merryman, a 79-year-old computer engineer, got a reminder of that last month when Jump Operations -- the holding company for crypto giant Jump Trading -- put the legal screws to him to obtain wormhole.com, a domain he has owned for years and that corresponds to an email he created for he and his wife. For Merryman, the domain reflects his fondness for astrophysicist Carl Sagan, whose 1985 novel "Contact" deployed a "wormhole" to let characters skip across light years. Merryman purchased the wormhole.com domain in 1994, creating a simple placeholder website that displays a cosmic picture.
For Jump, however, "wormhole" has a very different significance. It is the name of a crypto platform that creates "bridges" between popular blockchains such as Solana and Ethereum, and in which Jump has a very significant investment. While Jump is currently using the wormholenetwork.com to host Wormhole-related content, it has coveted the shorter name owned by Merryman, and began trying to acquire it last year. In June of 2021, someone at Jump used a third-party domain broker to approach Merryman and offer $2,500 for the name. The latter rebuffed the request, saying -- perhaps in jest -- that the price was a "firm US$50000." To Merryman's surprise, Jump promptly accepted the offer -- an acceptance that Merryman proceeded to ignore. After being badgered by the broker, he made his feelings clear a few weeks later. Jump then pulled out the big guns. The company's lawyers warned Merryman he was in breach of contract and that he had to honor the message saying he would sell for $50,000.
For Jump, however, "wormhole" has a very different significance. It is the name of a crypto platform that creates "bridges" between popular blockchains such as Solana and Ethereum, and in which Jump has a very significant investment. While Jump is currently using the wormholenetwork.com to host Wormhole-related content, it has coveted the shorter name owned by Merryman, and began trying to acquire it last year. In June of 2021, someone at Jump used a third-party domain broker to approach Merryman and offer $2,500 for the name. The latter rebuffed the request, saying -- perhaps in jest -- that the price was a "firm US$50000." To Merryman's surprise, Jump promptly accepted the offer -- an acceptance that Merryman proceeded to ignore. After being badgered by the broker, he made his feelings clear a few weeks later. Jump then pulled out the big guns. The company's lawyers warned Merryman he was in breach of contract and that he had to honor the message saying he would sell for $50,000.
weird (Score:2)
Very weird. Without a contract or agreement, you can usually withdraw before money changes hands. Once money changes hands, that's it though.
I'm sure courts know their business better than I do...
Re:weird (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem is if you get sued by some idiot it's going to cost you a lot of time and money to resolve it. Since this is a crypto scam, even if he won there is a good chance he wouldn't be able to recover any costs.
When the choice is between fending off a spurious lawsuit and a cheque for $50k, it's not a hard decision for most people to make.
Re: (Score:3)
Very weird. Without a contract or agreement, you can usually withdraw before money changes hands. Once money changes hands, that's it though.
I'm sure courts know their business better than I do...
Odds are (haven't RTFA), Merryman didn't have the wherewithal to hold up in court anywhere near as long as Jump does. As such, he took the money instead of ringing up that much (or more) in court fees that he likely couldn't afford out of pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the other weird thing. You can't perpetually litigate a simple transaction. Once discovery is done, there should a trial or settlement. For $50k, his lawyer wouldn't take it (I RTFA). Merryman may or may not have called other lawyers to see. He probably could have won, at substantial personal cost.
As usual, those who can afford lawyers eventually get their own way.
I think if I want to blow someone off, I need to do it in a way so that the transaction is small enough to be pushed into small claims cou
Exactly. (Score:2)
Civil court isn't about right and wrong. Being correct in a trial is fine and all, but actually getting to a trial in the first place is a gigantic barrier to entry. The whole system is designed to push people into settlement, regardless of who's "right".
So they landed on a sum that, under the circumstances, he could live with. "Satisfaction of moral outrage" isn't on the checklist.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make anyone feel better or worse that a bullshit threat from a corporation, costs $50K or more?
I love how we're focused on exactly how tall the trees are, while somehow being able to ignore the shit out of the forest on fire.
It's a legal system, not a justice system. And like the mainstream news, it now exists to turn a profit, by any corruption necessary. That should scare the shit out of anyone who assumes they're not within threats reach. When Greed knows it can win every time, don't assume Gr
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make anyone feel better or worse that a bullshit threat from a corporation, costs $50K or more?
The cost was set by his original offer to sell. If he had said $100k in his email it would have cost him that.
Likely he could have fought it and won, he just didn't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I wasn't posting to absolve the situation of its failures. This is a ridiculous but, sadly an all too often, accurate assessment.
Re: (Score:2)
That is sadly what passes for justice in civil courts. It simply costs too much to get justice. One example I came across was regarding unfair dismissal, which is I think a civil rather than a criminal matter. Some experienced workers were employed at a factory I worked with, who turned out to know all the tricks in the book in how to get paid as much as possible for doing bugger all. So they were sacked. This was in Northern Ireland, which has some problems with religious discrimination. Anyway, the nefari
Re: (Score:2)
That is sadly what passes for justice in civil courts. It simply costs too much to get justice.
My personal favorite example of someone being able to prove this statement wrong is Blue Jeans Cable [bluejeanscable.com] happening to be headed by a former lawyer and hitting back against Monster's Lawsuit [audioholics.com]. Oh how the...snake oil have fallen?
That said, very few people happen to be a lawyer able to counter like this. And, sadly, it takes a lawyer's level of legalese to be able to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for that. There would be a great deal more actual justice if it were generally possible to provide this kind of response to corporate legal thuggery. I like to think that I could have written as good a response on the technical points, but I fear it would be inadequate in terms of legal standing. It does appear that you have to be prepared to put a good deal of money on the line, to win a minor legal tussle on a matter or principle, and I think the assumption on the part of Monster was that this alon
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can sue anyone for basically any reason. Merryman had two options: 1) Get lawyers involved, which would take time and money, or 2) Take the $50,000
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he could win, the man is 79 years old. Maybe he was just not willing to fight a long and stressful fight in court, and chose to just enjoy a cool $50K while alive.
Re: (Score:2)
This site has a good summary: https://www.primerus.com/defense-law-articles/beware-the-send-button-offer-acceptance-and-the-knockout-rule-in-electronic-contract-negotiation.htm#:~:text=Parties%20often%20use%20email%20as,do%20create%20an%20enforceable%20contract. Basically though a contract consists of an offer and an acceptance. The offer must be signed to be valid, but cas
Re: (Score:2)
The email could be seen as an agreement. He could probably have gotten out of it with a lawyer of his own handling the negotiations ("He said $50k, but he meant $50k and these other considerations..."), but he'd have to hire the lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they strong arm the seller. It wouldn't have held up in court, but do you really want to deal with that hassle when you're 79?
Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:4, Insightful)
In civil law 101 students learn the requirements of a contract:
Offer
Acceptance
Exchange of consideration
Exchange of consideration means they both give each other something. In some cases, that something can be a promise, but it has to be a promise seperate from the offer.
A typical contract goes like this:
I'll sell the car for $10K. (offer)
Okay, I'll buy it for $10K. (acceptance)
Hands over money, hands over keys or title (exchange of consideration)
You can't change your mind after those three elements have been met. (Other than certain statutory exceptions).
What we have here is an offer and an acceptance, but no exchange of consideration. A contract would have been formed.if the plaintiff had sent the money and the defendant had initiated the transfer of the domain. The borderline case is if they sent they money, then he said "okay, I'll transfer the domain when I get home" (a promise).
With no exchange of consideration, there is no contract.
The appropriate suit would be false advertising, but they'd lose that too.
Re:Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's true. IANAL.
Offer and Acceptance creates the contract. Once both are satisified - even verbally - it's binding.
Exchange of consideration is, to my knowledge, a breach of contract, and not a part of its creation.
You can't change your mind after acceptance. Otherwise buying/selling a house would be a nightmare. If people could pull the plug by simply choosing not to pay, there's no end of trouble that could arise.
Consideration is required, but it's incredibly flexible. I can sell you a house for a dollar, and consideration can be argued to be met.
But consideration is not the exchange. Consideration is the value, not the event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it has to be more official than that, you can't idly ask someone what they'd want for something and then slap it on the table and claim they must comply now.
Except that wasn't what happened. Here was a clear intention to purchase, an offer, a counter offer and acceptance.
Simply not having an exchange of consideration doesn't mean that the courts wouldn't see this as a negotiation in bad faith and force the counter-offer to be upheld.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you say, "I will buy that thing from you for $100.00", and they say "Yes", you are contractually obligated to make good on it. Verbal contracts are binding.
So if an individual walks into a store, looks at an item and says "I'd buy that for that price on the tag", a store clerk takes the item off the shelf and says "Here you go." - store can call the police and report said individual for shoplifting if that person just turns around and walks out of the store?
They declared they'd take the item and then refused to pay for it. Who cares if they never took the item? They owe the store money for it.
Ergo, never taking the item and leaving the store is shoplifting.
Cau
Re: (Score:2)
Shoplifting is a criminal offence. Contract breaches are civil matters. They are very different things and in your proposed scenario unrelated to each other.
The police are not going to turn up to your business meeting to help straighten out contractual disputes.
Re: Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:2)
Not all verbal contracts are binding. It varies state to state, but typically contracts for "significant" amounts of money (above a few hundred bucks where I am I think) require a written contract. I think this is kind of like two party consent in recording conversations. People think it's a thing everywhere, but really it's only a legal requirement in a few states
Re: (Score:3)
Otherwise buying/selling a house would be a nightmare. If people could pull the plug by simply choosing not to pay, there's no end of trouble that could arise.
You can definitely pull out before actually signing a contract. You just lose your earnest money / good faith deposit.
Re:Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:4, Informative)
You can't pull out of a contract. You can only breach it, or exercise specific pathways contractually agreed upon that fulfill the contract without the exchange of consideration.
You can define the terms of potential exits in the contract. In the case of buying a house, you add "terms". "Subject to sale of current property", "subject to financing", "subject to inspection", etc..
In practice people finangle their way into a non-performing exit by using some version of the terms listed. Often everybody knows the excuse is questionable, but it's how you work within the borders of a hard-edged legal process.
That's what earnest money is for (Score:2)
> Exchange of consideration is, to my knowledge, a breach of contract, and not a part of its creation.
> You can't change your mind after acceptance. Otherwise buying/selling a house would be a nightmare. If people could pull the plug by simply choosing not to pay, there's no end of trouble that could arise.
If you've ever bought a house, pull up your contract. It will have wording quite like this if you're in the US or a common law country:
--
5. EARNEST MONEY AND TERMINATION OPTION:
A. DELIVERY
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we're on different sides of the argument. If the contract includes terms that specifically allow for different forms of completion including a "cancellation" clause, you aren't walking away from it. You are fulfilling it.
I'm saying that in the absence of a legal mechanism, you can't just walk away from it - i.e. simply choose not to participate in the agreement. In that case, you're in breach.
Re: (Score:2)
In civil law 101 students learn the requirements of a contract:
Offer
Acceptance
Exchange of consideration
In civil law 102 students learn that the world is far more complicated than that. The exchange of the consideration locks in the contract as complete, but there are plenty of examples where no exchange of consideration is required if a party was negotiating a contract in bad faith.
e.g.
- A supermarket need to honour the sticker price of their products, even before exchange of consideration.
- A bidder in an auction needs to honour the purchase and hand over money, even before exchange of consideration.
- A off
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, a counter is not an amendment to an offer. There is only "offer", "acceptance". Counter is the act of refusing/destroying the original offer, and creating a new one.
It's a small distinction, but it's real.
Consider the case of, "I offer to sell you this car for $500 and your lawnmower".
You: "How about $300"? ...at this point, the offer $300 plus the lawnmower no longer exists.
Me: "Sold!" ...now the point of contention will be that the new offer doesn't include a lawnmower. The offer is not "addit
And what you learn in Business 101... (Score:2)
And what you learn in Business 101 is that lawsuits are used to get what one wants by use of force, regardless of what the law actually says.
This man faces two options:
A) Get paid $50,000 for the domain, or
B) Risk losing at least $50,000 in legal fees to defend the domain.
Would you rather get paid $50K, or be forced to spend $50K?
Re: (Score:2)
He said he's tired, and it also says it's 79. At this point, it's probably not worth the time to fuck with it They could probably litigate him to death with dumb fuck crypto scam money fleeced from morons.
Re:Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:5, Insightful)
The contract was formed on offer and acceptance: the consideration is part of the offer.
People seem quite confused about this. The contract is NOT FORMED when the consideration is EXCHANGED. The contract alreday fully exists BEFORE THEY PAY HIM. The contract says they are obligated to pay him, and he is obligated to hand over the domain.
The contract was the promise to make the exchange.
They can't get out of the contract by not paying. He can't get out of the contract by not cashing the check. They are both already totally on the hook -- BEFORE the money changes hands.
He's fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
> People seem quite confused about this. The contract is NOT FORMED
"People" would include pretty much every judge ever. :)
If you'd like to understand the actual law, rather than making stuff up completely out of your butt, Nolo has a decent article for the layman:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc... [nolo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have quoted this above as well. So just be sure, I read it.
I don't know what point you're making here. The GP is right. Consideration is supposed to be described, but it is not the act of exchange. It's a description of the benefit each party expects to derive. The contract is done before the exchange occurs. It has to be.
Back to the "selling a house"example - just tell the lawyers that won't sign anything until you're in a mexican standoff - signature to be provided while money is simulta
Re: (Score:2)
> Back to the "selling a house"example - just tell the lawyers that won't sign anything until you're in a mexican standoff - signature to be provided while money is simultaneously handed over in a briefcase.
Tell you what, try *reading* it, _then_ replying to it.
The consideration which is specifically called out in the home purchase contract is the $1-$500 earnest money on one side, and the grant of option on the other side. There's a reason the contract specifically points out that's "good and valuable c
Re: (Score:2)
I am seeing a lot of lawyerly talk, which may or may not originate from actual lawyers, so I am going to join in. There can be an agreement or contract, which is subsequently found to be unconscionable. That is, even if the wronged party freely agreed to the terms, it can be shown that this was a misunderstanding, that no reasonable person would agree to.
I heard of a case where an engineering firm was offered a contract which stipulated such stringent technical requirements that few would even quote for the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score:2)
Yep. It's nice to be a freelancer, but it also means you have to be a lot more careful when buying stuff on the company's account, because you get much less protection (in NL)
Re: (Score:2)
He made an offer for $50K, which became binding upon acceptance by the counterparty.
Someone responded with a price. That doesn't mean he's willing to sell, or even willing to sell to you.
If someone offered me $5K for my car, I would probably respond and clarify it's worth $30K to me. I don't see how that is construed as a contract, because it's not even really an offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: weird (Score:2)
But if you said "I won't sell for that, but I will sell for 30K" and I said "deal!", I would most certainly have a case if you then refused to sell. Especially if you put it in writing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so weird to hear from a non-US perspective. Here in the UK, you can change your mind at this stage without issue.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you said "I won't sell for that, but I will sell for 30K" and I said "deal!", I would most certainly have a case if you then refused to sell. Especially if you put it in writing.
30K. Perhaps I should have clarified. I meant 30,000 pounds of gold.
I take it we still have a "deal!", as per your lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
That's verbal. You can swear up and down that you phrased it "I won't even negotiate for less than $30k," and then refuse every offer they send you in the negotiation and you're fine because they don't have an actual record of what you said. If they email you an offer for $5k, and you respond with a "firm $30k," and it's all in writing because it's email, that's a much different legal problem. They have a Federal case should they choose to pursue it.
You can probably get out of the deal, but that's going to
Re: (Score:2)
That's verbal. You can swear up and down that you phrased it "I won't even negotiate for less than $30k," and then refuse every offer they send you in the negotiation and you're fine because they don't have an actual record of what you said. If they email you an offer for $5k, and you respond with a "firm $30k," and it's all in writing because it's email, that's a much different legal problem. They have a Federal case should they choose to pursue it..
"firm $30K" doesn't actually mean a damn thing. I'm clarifying the value of an asset you are trying to buy from me, and nothing more. I'm not even interested in selling. Internet Rando was merely spamming me with buying, with an assumption that I would sell, or even be interested.
Quite honestly, if email holds that much power legally, then I don't know why the hell anyone would bother supporting the Contract Industry.
Re: (Score:2)
The think about "Firm $30k" is that it does not sound like "Clarifying the value of the asset," it sounds like setting a negotiating position of $30k. If they say yes you just sold your car. So what's going to happen is the Judge is going to have to get everyone in Court, get the entire story, get your testimony that despite using the phrase "Firm $30k" you weren't negotiating, and then Judge decides whether you were actually negotiating. Thus if our story subject had a lawyer he's got better odds of keepin
Re: (Score:2)
He made an offer for $50K, which became binding upon acceptance by the counterparty.
He's fortunate he got offered anything. They could have sued him for domain squatting and he wouldn't have gotten jack-sh*t if he had lost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:weird (Score:4, Informative)
thats not how any of this works...
Why does it matter anymore? When a corporation chooses to throw a legal threat against any citizen, you have a choice. Fight, or settle.
The overwhelming majority of citizens, cannot afford to fight, so "requests" for your domain, will soon turn into another form of Eminent Domain, where corporations will simply start taking your domain, knowing you can't really afford to do a damn thing about it.
And if you think it could never happen, I refer back to Eminent Domain, which puts a shotgun sized hole in the concept of ownership.
The politeness we see today, will end if everyone involved simply ignores this kind of extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
(...) Eminent Domain, which puts a shotgun sized hole in the concept of ownership.
I'd say that, rather than putting a hole in the concept, it simply reveals the difference between "true ownership" and "pretend ownership".
True ownership is when you have the guns (literal ones) to state "this is mine". With enough personnel, ammunition and whatnot to make sure anyone else contemplating the idea that what's yours is actually theirs to rethink it very, very carefully.
Pretend ownership, in contrast, is when a true owner tells you, who doesn't have the big guns, personnel etc., that you "own"
Re: (Score:3)
True ownership is when you have the guns (literal ones) to state "this is mine".
I have no guns. Are you really saying that I own nothing?
By the way, it cannot have escaped your notice that the USA is not some Hobbesian state of nature, but rather a civil society under the rule of law.
The idea of private property, that in which you own something without needing to defend it from everyone else, has always been a fantasy. What differentiates countries isn't that in some this is somehow "more real". Rather, it's simply that in some of them the true owner has a higher (not full, higher) willingness to take into account those also-fantastical pieces of meaningless paper we call "contracts", "rights" and the like, and run with them longer than others. But that's about it.
So laughable untrue that I see no point in refuting it. But if I must, I simply point out the suum cuique of Justinian's Institutiones, which is the basis of all Western law: i.e., to each his own. That works spends a hell of a lot of time defining and defending that which you call a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
By the way, it cannot have escaped your notice that the USA is not some Hobbesian state of nature, but rather a civil society under the rule of law.
Damn, that is the funniest thing I have read in at least a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
True ownership is when you have the guns...
That would be rule of might, or what could be called the Wild West. Theoretically, we are more civilised now, and such things are decided according to rule of law, in a duly constituted court. However, what you need now is not a gunslinger in Clint Eastwood style, but smart lawyers, whose knowledge of the intricacies of the law means that they very rarely miss their target. You might as well be waving a shovel in combat with a machine gun.
Re: (Score:3)
The Wild West is appropriate here. How did you get your ranch? Your grandfather stole it from the natives? Or the government declared that the entire territory was theirs now, and are giving out land grants to anyone who can take it and defend it against the natives? Real estate is mostly owned only so far as a government has granted the ability to buy it, and it's not a sacred right granted through the ability to give some money to a bank.
For instance, here in California, my title search for my small co
Re: (Score:2)
The history of the colonisation of America is very interesting. One concept I looked up is Manifest Destiny. In the spirit of upsetting as many people as I can with one idea, I propose that the invasion of America by Europeans was not much different to Lebensraum, as promoted by the Nazis, in regard to lands to the east of Germany. An interesting politics point is that native Americans had no concept of owning land. The land was just where you live, and where your ancestors had lived, but it is not somethin
Re: (Score:2)
I have no guns. Are you really saying that I own nothing?
Yes. You own nothing. Who owns all of your "property" is your country. As I said, if in doubt try not paying the rent you owe on that "property" of yours to the actual owner, and see how long that "property" stays so. If someone else can come and take it from you, it isn't yours. If you cannot protect it from others, all you have is possession, not ownership.
In fact, very few people in this world truly own anything at all. And you aren't one of them.
By the way, it cannot have escaped your notice that the USA is not some Hobbesian state of nature, but rather a civil society under the rule of law.
It's cute that you think like that. Next thing, you'll tel
Re: (Score:3)
You confuse cynicism for wisdom, which is so typical of those who, rather than concede they know nothing at all, are convinced that they know exactly how everything works.
If I pointed out that the concept of theft still treats my property as mine, you'd counter that's just an illusion to keep me in line. As such, your position is non-falsifiable, and I'll leave you with it.
I do not know how much time you've actually spent with the foundational texts of law, but I would invite you to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
If I pointed out that the concept of theft still treats my property as mine, you'd counter that's just an illusion to keep me in line.
You assume too much. I'd answer that theft treats your property as yours in the sense the actual owner determined those goods, lands, factories etc. are for you to use according to the real owner's rules, not for the thief to use. The thief thus acts against you both. And precisely because the actual owner is owner due to having the means of violence to enforce their ownership, it's them, the real owner, and those they employ to practice violence for them, who will hunt and try and punish the thief if/when
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
? Eminent Domain is a power only afforded to the government.
There is no such thing as a monopoly anymore. Too Big To Fail, is now enshrined in American history and precedent.
Craaazy how that happened among the billionaire Donor Class, as we assume mega-corps have little or no ability to manipulate power and control.
Re: (Score:2)
Ownership is an iffy thing at times. Ie, emminent domain seems like they're stealing your land, but.. where did the land come from orignally? You didn't create the land, you bought it from someone, who bought it from someone, who got it granted to them by a government, who got it from military conquest... At least in eminent domain they are giving your fair market value.
Re: (Score:2)
thats not how any of this works...
Why does it matter anymore? When a corporation chooses to throw a legal threat against any citizen, you have a choice. Fight, or settle.
The overwhelming majority of citizens, cannot afford to fight, so "requests" for your domain, will soon turn into another form of Eminent Domain, where corporations will simply start taking your domain, knowing you can't really afford to do a damn thing about it.
And if you think it could never happen, I refer back to Eminent Domain, which puts a shotgun sized hole in the concept of ownership.
The politeness we see today, will end if everyone involved simply ignores this kind of extortion.
Years ago after working several years for a large multinational corporation (the kind where none of the employees seemed to know the name of the CEO, or path of managers between the CEO and them) I agreed to do some part time work while I went back to school.
Long story short, they screwed up and payed me some extra money which caused me to screw up and not claim some hours. When they figured out the error their response was that I couldn't claim my hours, but I had to pay back the extra money or they'd send
Re: weird (Score:2)
Offering to sell *any* domain name at *any* price is very likely going to put you into a world of hurt legally, especially when there are trademarks involved. Doesn't matter whether the other person is a corporate entity or not.
If you are willing to actually sell any domain name, and you are wanting a significant amount of money for it, you should probably get a lawyer involved before you give any kind of response to an offer aside from just ignoring it. If you screw it up, you can often end up being forced
Re: (Score:2)
thats not how any of this works...
Not sure from context what you're saying here, but I'll just try to be informative.
The company made an offer, he rejected and sent them a counter-offer The material terms of the contract were entirely clear. The company accepted his terms. A contract was formed, and it was even memorialized in email.
Unless he's going to claim that he didn't send that email, I don't see anywhere here that would indicate there was no contract. Is his excuse that he was just kidding? It is true that a contract might not be for
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe you are correct. A contract is a single, cohesive document clearly stating the full terms of the agreement plus with signatory powers. What people have now is several unsigned emails each stating portions of the arraignment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: weird (Score:2)
Locally, a verbal agreement to sell your house, in front of witnesses, was binding until not too long ago when they changed it to make a written confirmation mandatory.
It led to quite a few lawsuits, but it was binding enough. For consumers in the EU there are protections, but if I would send a company mail to someone with an offer to buy and they accepted, that would be binding. And if it didn't include the terms I really wanted or it was a joke? Good luck in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the states. All you need is a way to prove that the guy agreed to do x in exchange for y, and that you successfully supplied y. Small claims judges deal with these situations all the time, because nobody has a lawyer go over their contract to pay some $160 a month to mow their grass. Paper is superior because you can show precisely what was agreed, and when; so there's never a dispute over whether it was $160 a month or $40 a week (which works out to $172 a month). In this case they have a written re
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this interpretation is correct (IANAL).
- Offer of $2,500
- Proposal of $50,000 (implies refusal of the $2,500 offer)
- Proposal acceptance
Sure, there are terms to be worked out, but the price has now been fixed, and there's a contract. This would be an interesting discussion to read about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
thats not how any of this works...
That's exactly how this works, the email is an offer and they accepted the contract. He could have said "it's not for sale", or it's $50,000 per year or it's $5,000,000 but he didn't.
I'm not saying it's right, however it is the contract he made.
What was the mechanism of the offer/acceptance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This was my first thought as well. Since this went through a third party broker, for all we know the communication was done in a manner where he was digitally signing a contract when responding. The story says his lawyer didn't want to take the case, but that could mean either he didn't have much of a case or his lawyer didn't feel he was qualified. The trademark lawyer quoted in the article stated a skilled trademark lawyer could get him a few hundred thousand dollars, and the defendant may have just not w
Sound bites aren't sworn testimony (Score:5, Interesting)
What contract? Was it notarized? The guy should have said "oh, well, that was a typo. I meant $500000."
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a written notarized contract for an agreement to be upheld in courts. All that does is make a resulting case more clear cut.
Also saying "that was a typo" isn't a defence either. A judge may rule that you were negotiating in bad faith. Nothing about contract law is clear cut. If it were the world wouldn't have lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also saying "that was a typo" isn't a defence either.
Funnily enough, that was precisely the defence that a supplier put up when their kit failed to meet their published specifications. This failure to meet published specifications had a significant impact on the first major installation of the product I designed, trusting in the specifications. The massive failure in the field cost my employer a great deal of money in terms of replacing faulty kit, and probably at least as much in reputation. But at the end of the day, it simply was not worth fighting this in
Replying to an email a contract? (Score:2)
I'm curious who added the "perhaps in jest" comment. Without that phrase, the description of what happened was more like offer, counter-offer, and acceptance.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see where the article said he was replying with an email. For all we know he replied through a third party's broker's website or DocuSign document which acted as a legal document with a digital signature.
Lesson for the wise (Score:2)
When you put a dollar sign in writing (even if it's an email), make it stupid big. Otherwise, you will be screwed. You can always make the number smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
Verbal contracts are binding in some places as well. So make it ridiculous if you say it as well.
Re: (Score:2)
And make sure the stupid big is stupid big for anyone even the large companies in the world. Stupid big starts at least a billion or more.
He may have though 50k was so far outside the realm of what was possible that it was stupid big. Never assume you know who is on the other end of the request, and never assume that their starting offer has any bearing on what they are really willing to pay. Even someone willing to pay millions will start at some really low value under $10k for something like this that
Re: (Score:2)
And to be clear, stupid big is enough where you can retire. Although in this case he is 79 so he likely has retirement covered. Perhaps in his case it should have been enough where his kids could retire.
Even Crichton would pass on this one ... (Score:3)
For Jump, however, "wormhole" has a very different significance. It is the name of a crypto platform that creates "bridges" between popular blockchains such as Solana and Ethereum, ...
Gotta be careful about all those "Unrealized Realities". :-)
Given all the crypto thefts, scams, etc... I'm thinking "cornhole" might be more appropriate...
Lesson learned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
uh, let me go and ask my wife...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real lesson is that if you are going to respond with a ridiculously high number, you still need to be sure that you are willing to sell for that number should their response actually be "deal!. Otherwise, you may end being forced to sell your personal domain name for $50k when you actually would rather have kept it.
he can wait ... (Score:5, Funny)
... until the scam company goes bust and rebuy it for $50. shouldn't be long.
Gee, I wonder if that site will be slashdotted? (Score:2)
Go Fund Me (Score:2)
This guy needs a Go Fund Me page, he will get the cash he needs. Then he can rest while his legal team handles this.
The moral of the story (Score:3)
The moral is, if you don't intend to sell, don't give the prospective buyer an actual number. One option is to just let them keep making offers and keep telling them, "That's not enough money... yet."
Who knows? Eventually, maybe they would have reached a number that was legitimately acceptable to him.
Too low (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Offers made in obvious jest are not binding, but if the other party insists that he considers the offer binding and sues, what constitutes "obvious jest" would have to be determined by a judge.
Claiming that the offer was only a jest could have worked as defense in this case, but was likely not a given and litigation is expensive no matter what.
There was no fucking contract (Score:2)
Had Merryman gotten legal representation, this case would have been laughed out of court. Because, again, nothing that Merryman did constitutes a legally binding contract. He did not sign anything. Period. At best, they had an understanding but again, nothing signed.
Re: (Score:2)
Had Merryman gotten legal representation, this case would have been laughed out of court.
The point is, how much are you prepared to pay in order to get your case heard in court? Maybe you simply can't afford to get that far. You also run the risk of attracting the attentions of ambulance chasers, who appear to be offering their services for free, but in practice take a big chunk of any settlement, and you can be sure that any settlement they may negotiate is to their advantage, not to their client's advantage.
I have registered greedyarsehole.com (Score:2)
I am awaiting offers.
Re: (Score:2)
Caveat: consideration does not have to be commensurate to have been satisfied.
If I have a car with operating costs that are $500/month, and I simply can't afford it and I'm prepared to walk away, I could sell that car to somebody else for $1. Part of my consideration can be the reduction of ongoing operating costs. It's not spelled out in the contract specifically. That's why consideration may look incredibly one-sided and still be perfectly valid.
Consideration can address situations like, "Hey - you agreed
Re: (Score:2)
"Consideration" means that the parties are to provide something of value to the other party. In this case there is definitely consideration: one party is expected to receive an internet domain, the other to receive $50K.
Note that the exchange doesn't need to have taken place to make the contract valid: what makes the contract valid in respect to consideration is the agreed promise of performing the exchange of values.