Comment Hideous (Score 1) 47
The idea is terrible, the execution worse. Who from Google approved the demo videos?
Comment Re:Offer, acceptance, exchange of consideration (Score 1) 120
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.
Assuming this is in the US (which the reference to "federal" court in the article suggests), this is a common law, not a civil law question. While consideration is an essential element to a binding contract, you overstate/oversimplify the concept. Common law recognizes many forms of consideration as valid to support a contract, including future delivery/performance of obligations. You parenthetically reference "certain statutory exceptions" -- the statute of frauds will frequently preclude enforcing a contract without a signed writing. But that depends on the specific law governing the purported contract, and in any event may be complicated to argue in court, especially without a lawyer. Just being right under the law isn't the end of the inquiry, establishing it through litigation is expensive, time consuming and frustrating. This guy said he's tired, so it's unsurprising he elected for this course of action.
Comment Re:that would have been better, actually (Score 1) 1001
I don't have the time to look up the Supreme Court case you are referring to, but it involved a repainted BMW. The dealer never notified the buyer it had been scratched, and after he found out he sued. The actual damages were around $5,000, but the jury awarded multiple millions in punitive damages. The Supreme Court (purely in dicta) suggested that there was some low multiple that probably would represent the outer limit of a Constitutional punitive damages award. Here, however, there are no punitive damages at issue, and the precedent you refer to is inapposite.
If you are referring to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause, good luck. The overwhelming trend over the last decade(s) has been a merciless evisceration of that protection, although the Supremes recently hinted in oral argument that the severe mandatory drug sentencing laws might need to be revisited.
