Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 259

Thread: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

  1. #191
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,082

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    If you'd read the thread, then you'd know that the buyer doesn't pay until he gets possession of the spot.
    You're not good at this reading stuff. If you were you'd realize how flawed your entire argument is and that I just exposed your "it's only information that is being sold" as being nothing more than bull. Here, let me simplify it for you:

    1. If, as you claim, information is what is being sold, then the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there.
    2. If a salesperson needs to physically occupy the location until someone gets there so that the information remains true and the transaction goes through, what is being sold/auctioned/sold/exchanged for money is access to the physical location, not the information for it.
    3. You don't have a right to sell access to public property.

    In order for #1 to be true, #2 needs to be true itself and that makes the entire thing illegal.
    Do you know how businesses work at all?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 07-06-14 at 02:18 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #192
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If, as you claim, information is what is being sold, then the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there.
    Yes, you're right, the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there. But since the buyer doesn't pay anything unless he successfully gets the spot, and he participates under the proviso that he might not get a particular spot, your claim that a fraud has been committed if the buyer doesn't get the spot is bogus. The information only has value if it is true, but if it isn't he doesn't have to pay. So I wonder: how can there be a fraud unless the buyer pays for something he doesn't receive? With the way the app is set up, that's impossible. He doesn't pay unless the information is valid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    If a salesperson needs to physically occupy the location until someone gets there so that the information remains true and the transaction goes through, what is being sold/auctioned/sold/exchanged for money is the physical location, not the information for it.
    As I already noted, the buyer's claim is no more enforceable than anyone else's claim. His only advantage is that he has advance knowledge that a space is being vacated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    In order for #1 to be true, #2 needs to be true itself.
    Yes, in order for the transaction to be consummated the buyer needs to have access, and yes, the odds that that happens go up immensely if the seller waits until the buyer arrives, but, once again, the seller is well within his rights to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it.
    Last edited by Ahlevah; 07-06-14 at 02:44 AM.
    Нава́льный 2018

  3. #193
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,082

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Yes, you're right, the transaction is dependent on the information being true when the person gets there. But since the buyer doesn't pay anything unless he successfully gets the spot, and he participates under the proviso that he might not get a particular spot, your claim that a fraud has been committed if the buyer doesn't get the spot is bogus. The information only has value if it is true, but if it isn't he doesn't have to pay. So I wonder: how can there be a fraud unless the buyer pays for something he doesn't receive? With the way the app is set up, that's impossible. He doesn't pay unless the information was valid.

    As I already noted, the buyer's claim is no more enforceable than anyone else's claim. His only advantage is that he has advance knowledge that a space is being vacated.

    Yes, in order for the transaction to be consummated the buyer needs to have access, and yes, the odds that that happens go up immensely if the seller waits until the buyer arrives, but, once again, the seller is well within his rights to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it.
    Your statements mean that the buyer isn't selling information of any sort.

    1. Remember: According to you, information is what is being sold.
    2. However, the transaction can't go through unless the person who put the "information up for sale" is occupying it and can grant access to it.
    3. That means you've misrepresented about what is being sold the entire time. Because...
    4. The information is simply an advertisement for the spot & what is being sold is access to the spot, not information on where to get it.

    That is illegal.

    Thanks for playing.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #194
    Sage

    Ahlevah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Flyoverland
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,926

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Thanks for playing.
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.
    Нава́льный 2018

  5. #195
    Sage
    rabbitcaebannog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 08:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,918

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.
    As I understand it, there is bidding taking place. Basically, if you don't have the means to bid a lot of money for a space, you don't get to park. Our public parking system should not run like an aristocratic system where only those with a lot of cash get to park and to hell with everyone else. It should run first come first serve.

  6. #196
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:34 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,735

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.
    no the only person that has holes in his argument is you.

    1. a private lamp belongs to the person that owns it. therefore that person can buy and sell that lamp with no problem at all.
    2. These spaces are not owned by the person in them they belong to the public at large.

    you do not have the right to sell public own property as you are not the owner of said property.

  7. #197
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,082

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Let’s assume that I’m a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finder’s fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasn’t selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldn’t be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you can’t sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didn’t place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I don’t see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? You’re welcome. Please come again.
    It's so abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about business it's almost laughable.

    1. The person holding the spot is not being paid a finder's fee for someone else's private property like in your example.
    2. They are paying an access fee for public property they are occupying. Remember, the transaction can't go through unless the spot is being occupied by the person who placed the ad on it.

    I can't believe you actually tried to pass that ridiculous example off as being the same thing. Here you go again:

    1. You don't have a right to charge access fees for public property. This has been explained to you through the use of actual law statutes from San Francisco.
    2. You don't have a right to place advertisements of any sort that place the use of public property as the transferable good. Same as above.
    3. You have been dishonest about what is being transferred here.
    4. The information and use of technology are irrelevant without access to the spot being granted.
    5. A person could place an sign on their car (which isn't public property) advertising that they'll move their car for a fee and it would still amount to the exact same illegal activity.

    I wish you actually knew something about business.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #198
    Sage
    Lord of Planar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Portlandia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,325

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    Repeating the same falsities over and over doesn't make them true. Let me use an example to illustrate how your caboose has jumped the rails.

    Letís assume that Iím a collector of rare Tiffany lamps and I place an advertisement in a collectors' journal concerning paying a 10% finderís fee to anyone who provides me with information that leads to the successful purchase of a genuine Tiffany lamp.

    I receive contact from someone in Cincinnati who claims to have a lead on a lamp. So I fly there and agree to meet with this person. He takes me to an antiques store where, lo and behold, I spy what appears to be just such a lamp. I then confirm that my payment of the fee, once I negotiate the purchase, is dependent upon me verifying the authenticity of the lamp. He agrees. So I purchase the lamp, but then, after I have it examined by an expert, I discover that it is a clever copy and I'm now the proud owner of a fake Tiffany lamp. So, in accordance with the terms I originally set forth to my contact, I refuse to pay the fee and my "seller" grudgingly accepts this news.

    The first question is what was my contact selling me? A lamp? No. He didn't own it. He wasnít selling me any object, public or private. He was selling me a lead on a lamp. Did he commit fraud when I found out the lamp was fake? No, he did not, because he had no knowledge that the lamp was fake and, in any case, he wouldnít be paid until I was satisfied with the purchase. Was his contact with me an advertisement for the sale of the lamp? No, it was not, since, as I said, you canít sell what you do not own. My seller was selling information, and made no representation that he owned the lamp. He certainly didnít place a sign on it in the store representing that he was selling it, so he did not run afoul of any law prohibiting such conduct. And if someone else had wanted to buy it I donít see how he could have prevented them.

    So, as you can see, your argument has more holes in it than a slice of Swiss cheese. Thanks for playing? Youíre welcome. Please come again.
    Does that apple taste like an orange to you?

  9. #199
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,082

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord of Planar View Post
    Does that apple taste like an orange to you?
    Of course it doesn't. He's been trying to sneak around what the law says on this matter through the entire thread. He actually tried to claim that laws against advertising the sale/use of public property pertained to people who physically place ads and not internet based advertisement. He's probably a shrill for the company and was expecting people on this forum to actually buy the bull**** claim that what is being transferred for information. If information was what was being transferred, there wouldn't be a need for payment after the parking spot has been taken over from the person who placed the advertisement for it in the first place.What is being paid for is access to spot, not the information for it.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  10. #200
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: S.F. threatens parking app 'MonkeyParking' with lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahlevah View Post
    The seller (of the info) has a right to occupy the spot. He also has a right to vacate the spot when he chooses to vacate it. As far as the buyer having exclusive rights to it, I don't think anyone is making that claim; a "buyer" can only enforce his claim to the same extent as any other driver, with the general operating principle in such matters being "The early bird gets the worm." The early bird in this case gets the worm because he knew something the other drivers didn't.
    By holding the parking spaces until another car comes, and then collecting money for holding those spaces, these people are in practice selling parking spaces. Call it selling information all you want, but that is simply attempted to put lipstick on a pig. End of story. What these people are doing is no more legal than random people deciding to park on my driveway.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

Page 20 of 26 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •