By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 20:05:00 +0000

While I agree with the court in siding with the seller, I think it is a bit harsh to say the seller was negligent for not maintaining a more secure email system. His business, like so many out there (including more sophisticated Silicon Valley start-ups) use third party services and pretty much assume those service providers are doing what needs to be done in terms of security. On the other hand, it should be fairly easy nowadays to spot a dubious email from a likely scammer, particularly when the email address is not the one normally used by the seller and the content is littered with mistakes. This case is a good lesson that sometimes it’s best to go “old school” and just pick up the phone to confirm the details.

By: Theperkyone

Theperkyone — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 22:04:00 +0000

I agree with the Court. Technology obscures the issue. Think of it this way: imagine if the court sided with the buyer based on contract considerations….wouldn’t there then be a common law claim for unjust enrichment? Now one could argue that the contact trumps the common law but that is not the point. The point is that it seems fundamentally unfair for the buyer to keep the goods and not pay anything for them when the seller never had the buyer’s money in his possession. It is kind of like the whole FOB issue that comes up when things are sent by train and then the train derails. Absent a specific contract clause indicating the contrary the seller has the responsibility to deliver the goods safely and the buyer has a responsibility to deliver the money safely. Since the seller never got the money in this case, the buyer loses.

Comments on: Nigerians Phish a B2B Transaction & Steal $736k. Who Bears the Loss?–Beau Townsend Ford v. Don Hinds Ford

By: Ian

By: Theperkyone