The Skrill agree to pay up to $10,000.00 to settle $40.00 debt.

Contract

[In common law legal systems, a contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation."[1]

Proof of some or all of these elements may be done in writing, though contracts may be made entirely orally or by conduct. The remedy for breach of contract can be "damages" in the form of compensation of money or specific performance enforced through an injunction. Both of these remedies award the party at loss the "benefit of the bargain" or expectation damages, which are greater than mere reliance damages, as in promissory estoppel.] citation.

See Contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone who believes that there is not a contract or breach of it between me and Skrill may study the above and other legal literature and case laws.
 
on a second thought i believe that this is wrong forum so i am asking the moderator to delete the entire thread


Moderation Note: Since the dispute is with a payments processor instead of specifically with the actions of a forex product or services provider, this thread is being moved to the Non-Forex Scam Alerts folder.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably a good idea to delete.

Headline was misleading "agreed" is not true.

Common sense is not evident.

Unless one chooses to debate law.
 
Completely delete this subject. The title is totally misleading, wrong in all forms. The owner of the topic feels too intelligent than other members. So he does not really need us. He suppose to use his intelligence to turn his 40$ into thousands of dollars, instead of waiting for a manna of 10,000$ from doing nothing.
 
Since the man issue here is a title, I must say that both of you stevesmain Lanzo are somewhat naive.

implied contract
An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. This is a contract assumed to have been drawn. In this case, there is no written record nor any actual verbal agreement. A form of an implied contract is an implied warranty provided automatically by law. See https://www.google.com/#q=implied+contract+definition

Therefore, if I tell Skrill give me my $40 or I sue you for $10,000 and they refuse then they legally agree to a judgment against them for $10,000.
 
Hello merlin4x

Is $10,000 the maximum payout or amount you can sue for, or this it left to the judge to made an award he/she sees as fit.

Over 20 years ago my husband took his employers to court and settled for the maximum £1,000 the company offered, but the total payout by the company (including court fees etc) came to £38,450. So if the same thing happens in your case it could run into $100,000s for "Skills" if they were to fight it in court and lose.

Good luck
ilearn2t
 
$10,000 is the maximum amount I can sue for in the California Small Claims Court, I could sue in the California Superior court for unlimited amount. Similarly in the Federal Court.
 
Pharaoh, why start making popcorn??? I believe FPA is here to help the community fight against any form of scam related primarily to forex business. So I would like to ask FPA to not deviate from its devotion.

Since Merlin4x seems to have his own plan that requires little, if any assistance, I'm getting the popcorn ready so everyone can sit back and watch.

Since the man issue here is a title, I must say that both of you stevesmain Lanzo are somewhat naive.

implied contract
An implied contract is an agreement created by actions of the parties involved, but it is not written or spoken. This is a contract assumed to have been drawn. In this case, there is no written record nor any actual verbal agreement. A form of an implied contract is an implied warranty provided automatically by law. See https://www.google.com/#q=implied+contract+definition

Therefore, if I tell Skrill give me my $40 or I sue you for $10,000 and they refuse then they legally agree to a judgment against them for $10,000.

Quite wrong. By entering into a contract, both parties only agree that they have the right to sue the hell out of each other if/when either or both of them feels there has been a breach. This does not mean that they specifically agree that they are agreeing to pay the maximum possible amount when there hasn't even been a case filed.

$10,000 is the maximum amount I can sue for in the California Small Claims Court, I could sue in the California Superior court for unlimited amount. Similarly in the Federal Court.

By your logic, the fact that you could sue them for an unlimited amount means that your subject line should say "an unlimited amount" instead of "up to $10,000"

Further, if Skrill decided that some of what you have written might be libelous, and the jurisdiction where Skrill was contemplating suing you allowed for maximum damages of $1 million, the very fact that they have the potential to sue you (not even filed yet) mean that they could issue a press release where the title like "merlin4x agrees to pay Skrill up to $1 million over libelous statements"? I think not. If they did sue and won, I don't even think you would consider any payment of damages you made to be by your agreement.

A far more accurate title for this thread would be something like "Skrill faces potential damages of $10,000 over a $37.36 withdrawal."

I'm still puzzled why you would spend a year emailing them once per month when you could launch a complaint with the FOS or inside the Czech republic far more quickly. You should be well aware that your chances of getting the maximum damages are minimal, so what is the purpose of dragging this out when you could attempt to get a regulator or court elsewhere to make a ruling much sooner?


In any event, the popcorn is ready. I just hope you keep the thread up to date when you file your claim. I'd love to see the filing itself along with the judge's ruling.
 
Back
Top