[masswerk]

It may be worth noting that in most countries a contract essentially is established by the consensus of wills by the parties involved. An error in objecto ("I didn't mean the thing I accidentally said or listed") is a legitimate excuse and nullifies a contract. (The consensus didn't exist and thus the contract had never been established in the first place).

(This is also a reason why marketplaces, where things "just happen", are, let's say, complicated, as they do not adhere to this legal tradition.)

[paxys]

So many people think that the world runs algorithmically, like the code on their computer. Society is built upon interactions between real people. Everyone exercises a massive amount of judgement in whatever they do, for better or worse. And this is true for the legal system as well. Your "well technically I'm correct" arguments aren't going to work in front of a judge and jury the way they do on the internet.

[girvo]

This is one of the reasons I dislike the "literalist" judges and their "interpretations". It goes against what the law _is_, in my opinion.

Note: I have a law degree, but am not a lawyer

[throwaway_kufu]

It can be a defense in the US but not likely the case here, the remedy wouldn’t be specific performance (ie give me the domain) but damages for a fair market value of what I paid for, specific performance is very rare in the US. There would also be claims against the marketplace (despite their terms of service indemnifying them) other laws apply that can’t be waived under both federal and state law such as fair trade practices acts and deceptive trade practices). The whole point being anyone could increase prices that were advertised and say oh my ad was in error rendering every contract reversible and subject to post hoc price increases.

[AussieWog93]

I mean, that's what judicial discretion is for. Good luck convincing a judge that the seller honestly intended to sell his domain for 1000x lower than market value.

[throwaway_kufu]

No that isn’t what judicial discretion is. In contract law judges are not permitted to unilaterally interject their understanding of a contracting party’s intent and revise the terms of a contract, try looking up the “4 corners of a contract”.

I’ll give a specific example of a buddy of mine who in 2008 (during housing bubble) used to buy foreclosed homes at auction. There was a $2-3M home foreclosed Miami Beach home on auction, he put in a bid for about $200k, then the clerk of court website crashed, he didn’t think much of it, come to find out it crashed for everyone locking in his bid, the bank moved to set aside the sale on the basis of uncontrollable 3rd party error, my friend showed up single handedly with a few cases printed up in support of his position and the court denied the banks motion and my friend received title to the house. If the bank had any remedy it was for damages against the courts system that caused the damage not against the contractual winner of the auction.

[nmfisher]

That's not a contractual mistake though, is it?

It was an auction, meaning anyone could bid, and he put a genuine bid for $200k. Just because the system crashed doesn't mean anyone actually made a representation they didn't intend to.

A more realistic example would be the wrong house getting listed for auction due to clerical error (but one still owned by the bank). I'm fairly sure that would be set aside.

[throwaway_kufu]

Edit: sorry you were talking about my example and not the domain.

Auctions are contracts, in this case the seller (bank) agrees to accept the highest offer at the end of the expiration of the auction. So the terms are of the auction are time limited, historically the foreclosure auctions were done in person (sometimes on the courthouse steps), I’ve been at in person foreclosure auctions and the bank had a representative that ended up buying most of them (at least at the ones I attended)

[viceroyalbean]

The second example sounds a bit like the citi debt thing where they accidentally paid the entire principal when they meant only to pay a part.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/citibank-just-go...

Maybe I'm stretching it a bit, but the element of reasonably assuming that it was intentional seems similar. I'm sure there are some differentiating intricacies in the law though.

[masswerk]

Yes, the US does handle this a bit differently. However, this is handled stricter in countries with a stronger tradition in Roman law. (E.g., "by breaking this seal you consent to the EULA found inside the box" is invalid in Europe, since there isn't really any object, which a consensus could be formed on, at the given time.) – And, of course, you would have do provide proof for having been in error, or the error has to be obvious beyond reasonable doubt. (In this very case, raising the minimum price for similar offerings immediately after the error was detected, may hint at not having intentionally offered this at an unreasonably low price at fractions of the market value.)

[admax88q]

By returning your money you have suffered no damages. You're no worse off than before.