Pastor Fails Miserably When Interviewed By Court About How He Spends The Ministry's Funds!

"Knowing for a fact" isn't a requirement when taking out or loaning a person money let alone accepting cheques from donations.

"Knowing for a fact" is exactly what a representation in a contract is. There are tons of acknowledgements of facts in commercial contracts. So yeah, when you say certain things are a fact in order to induce someone to enter into a contract with you, then the truth of those "facts" is a requirement to the validity of the contract. That's sort of why we give contracts legal effect in the first place.

And none of this excuses the fact that the guy kept taking money from her even after he knew for a fact she couldn't afford it (the court straight up told him "she can't afford this, stop taking her money"). How is that excusable? Seriously. It doesn't matter that a court had to tell him that fact. Once he knew she couldn't afford it, he should have stopped taking the money. He didn't. Shouldn't she at least get that much back?

And your ability to return the van would be dependent upon the return policy of the dealership. You would be notified of the return policy before buying it, so you agreed to that policy as part of buying the car. If the policy allows you to return it for any reason within a week, then that's fine. The dealership gave you that right. But if the dealer says "Hey budget is really tight right now, so we can only accept returns if the car has factory defects, otherwise we can't afford to pay you a refund" and you say "Don't worry, I certainly won't try to return it and get a refund if the color is off or if it smells funny" then yeah, you have no right to return the car for those reasons.

The issue with the way you presented the flip side analogy is that you didn't make any representation of fact that the dealer relied upon before selling you the van. You didn't make any fraudulent misrepresentation as to the terms of what would allow you to force the dealer to take a return/make a refund. If you took the van back to the dealer and said "Hey there's a factory defect, take it back" but you knew you were saying that just because you didn't the color, then you absolutely shouldn't be able to force the dealer to take it back.

But if you allow for fraudulent misrepresentations in commercial transactions, then the dealer would be required to take it back - it's in the contract that he has to give a refund for factory defects, and you're allowed to blatantly lie under your legal regime, so he's forced to effect a refund he can't afford just cuz you lied to him and he has no way of knowing the real reason for the return.

See what I'm saying? You actually reinforced my point with your counter-hypothetical. Blatantly lying to someone to induce them to make you a legally enforceable promise is not a good thing. Ever. It shouldn't be allowed, and it's really moronic to think the world would be a better place if people could abuse a position of trust they're in.

/r/videos Thread Parent Link - youtube.com