The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Unless land is special
It is, at least if it's your primary residence. But I think that's a once in a lifetime exception.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@HardwareGeek Common sense did not apply here. Common sense might say that the sale was invalid, because $10 was obviously too low. This was what the first judge did, which is not the law, thus it was overturned on appeal.
It's actually not that obvious. We have had several instances of someone selling something expensive for a nominal fee of 1€.
Granted, it's usually because the buyer then also has to do some expensive clean-up or similar, but it's not unheard of.
-
@Rhywden said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
We have had several instances of someone selling something expensive for a nominal fee of 1€.
Under US law, as I understand it (IANAL), both parties to a contract must exchange "valuable consideration" — money, goods, services, whatever — for an enforceable contract to exist. ("I will give you this for free" is not an enforceable contract.) However, as long as some value is exchanged, the courts will not involve themselves with the amount of the exchange. A token payment is still a payment and creates a valid contract (assuming the other aspects of the contract are valid). This is pretty common when transferring property to a charity. The token payment of $1 creates a valid real estate contract that can be recorded with the relevant agencies, but it's still obviously a donation.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@HardwareGeek Common sense did not apply here. Common sense might say that the sale was invalid, because $10 was obviously too low. This was what the first judge did, which is not the law, thus it was overturned on appeal.
Richard III could have so fucked over Catesby if he'd actually had a horse to trade for that kingdom.
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
IANAL
But are you the guy who puts difficult to remove stickers on cookware at the store? It works out the same to me
-
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
-
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
In recent years, due to feminism, the idea that a person is unable to consent due to voluntary intoxication has arisen.
Yes, but the evidence of the other people (as discussed above) makes that moot. The seller was not sufficiently buzzed to have lost all powers of judgement.
However... the buyer should be taxed on the gain he makes when selling the land. Which will be the full value of the land less $10.
If he sells the land and does not turn around and get a bigger land
Unless land is special, that rule went away several decades ago.
Still works for buying a house though right?
-
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
They argued that it was obviously a joke, and nobody would take it seriously. In the show the ad agency added that they had a much higher number that would've made it not worth it to buy the points, but of course some idiot overruled them saying it doesn't look good on the screen.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Unless land is special, that rule went away several decades ago.
Still works for buying a house though right?
No, every transaction is treated as a separate thing.
Since 1997 when Congress passed the Taxpayer Relief Act, single homeowners can make up to $250,000 profit (twice that if married) on the sale of their principle residence without paying taxes. This rule replaces the pre-1997 rollover provisions allowing homeowners to defer gain on the sale of a house if a new residence was purchased within two years from the sale date.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
They argued that it was obviously a joke, and nobody would take it seriously.
So basically, the $10 guy was in the right, he just brought up the wrong argument in the court?
-
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
They argued that it was obviously a joke, and nobody would take it seriously.
So basically, the $10 guy was in the right, he just brought up the wrong argument in the court?
Not exactly. There's a subtle difference between the two. In the farm case, both sides thought they were taking advantage of a foolish person. The buyer knew that the seller did not think it would hold up in court (because obviously he wouldn't sell his farm for $10) even though the buyer correctly believed that it would, and the seller thought he was going to get ten bucks out of a fool.
In the jet case, the attempted buyer knew (even if he didn't admit it) that Pepsi never intended to offer a jet for sale for $700,000. Pepsi was not exactly trying to take advantage of anyone. It was a joke, and the judge ruled that a reasonable person would have recognized it as a joke. I'm not saying I agree with the jet judge, just that the two cases are not precisely equivalent.
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
This is not "funny stuff". This is extremely unfunny bickering about unimportant boring stuff. Take it somewhere fucking else.
-
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
They argued that it was obviously a joke, and nobody would take it seriously.
So basically, the $10 guy was in the right, he just brought up the wrong argument in the court?
Not exactly. There's a subtle difference between the two. In the farm case, both sides thought they were taking advantage of a foolish person. The buyer knew that the seller did not think it would hold up in court (because obviously he wouldn't sell his farm for $10) even though the buyer correctly believed that it would, and the seller thought he was going to get ten bucks out of a fool.
In other words, both sides knew no reasonable person would ever offer to sell that farm for $10 - the Pepsi defense applies and the contract ought to be declared null and void. The seller could be charged with fraud, but the contract itself had no legal power. Either that, or Pepsi defense only works when you're worth many zeroes more than the plaintiff.
-
Time to make this a separate thread.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@loopback0 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Am I the only one annoyed with people writing 40$ instead of $40?
-
@dangeRuss must be Americanism. Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss must be Americanism. Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency. How do you guys write the prices in other currencies?
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss must be Americanism. Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency. How do you guys write the prices in other currencies?
They don't, all worldwide trade is in dollars
-
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss must be Americanism. Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency. How do you guys write the prices in other currencies?
They don't, all worldwide trade is in dollars
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency.
cf. 40¢
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency.
cf. 40¢
Yes if we're talking peasant units. I'm talking amounts that can actually buy more than a stick of gum
-
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss must be Americanism. Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
I totally did that the first few years. Paiiiiiiin
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency. How do you guys write the prices in other currencies?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_symbol :
When writing currency amounts, the location of the symbol varies by language. For currencies in English-speaking countries and in most of Latin America, the symbol is placed before the amount, as in $20.50. In most other countries, including many in Europe, the symbol is placed after the amount, as in 20,50€. Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
Funny fluff:
-
![0_1687655663325_Screenshot_20230624_211146_Quora.jpg](Uploading 100%)
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I'm talking amounts that can actually buy more than a stick of gum
You guys can buy gum for 40¢?
-
Wikipedians trolling again.
Amazing Stories
-
-
@TimeBandit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I'm talking amounts that can actually buy more than a stick of gum
You guys can buy gum for 40¢?
One stick.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_symbol :
When writing currency amounts, the location of the symbol varies by language. For currencies in English-speaking countries and in most of Latin America, the symbol is placed before the amount, as in $20.50. In most other countries, including many in Europe, the symbol is placed after the amount, as in 20,50€. Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
I seem to recall them doing that in astrology (if you think banking is arcane) If the position at 12 degrees and 17 minutes into Pisces was somehow significant, the scribe would write 12 <Pisces glyph> 17.
But the use of the leading currency symbol in US amounts is confusing to people from simpler countries. Many's the time I've seen them write $100 dollars (or $100 USD for those hip to ISO) and then someone comes along and reads it aloud as "one hundred dollars dollars".
Incidentally, we could never get a consistent straight answer of whether British pounds sterling was ISO'sd as UKL or GBP.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
12 degrees and 17 minutes into Pisces
I presume that’s 12°17′ in the arbitrary-thirty-degree-interval-of-the-ecliptic-that-bears-little-to-no-relation-to-the-constellation-of-pisces-being-for-instance-presently-located-in-the-constellation-of-aquarius? “Pisces” is definitely easier to say, I’ll grant that.
For the curious…
“Pisces” is 330° to 0°. “Capricorn” (270°–300°) is merely 45″ and less than a year away from leaving Capricorn entirely – I think that means you should buy shares in Meta.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gustav said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@izzion said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Or, you know, the seller was probably a bit buzzed and therefore unable to consent to the deal. But that's more on the seller for not raising that issue if that wasn't part of the decision.
That issue was raised and decided to be irrelevant. Being a bit buzzed does not automatically invalidate a contract. The seller knew what he was doing, and, more to the point, a reasonable man witnessing the interaction would have said he knew what he was doing.
As opposed to an international multibillion dollar conglomerate with hundreds of people working on that points promotion and hundreds more on that one ad specifically? The $10 guy knew what he's doing, but THEY didn't?
They argued that it was obviously a joke, and nobody would take it seriously. In the show the ad agency added that they had a much higher number that would've made it not worth it to buy the points, but of course some idiot overruled them saying it doesn't look good on the screen.
"I always wanted to sell my farm for $257,522 but my mum said that's hard to pronounce with my stutter so I should just say "ten", everybody will know I'm not serious!"
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
Symbol overloading? They copied the American symbol, but changed the usage to a brand new one.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Incidentally, we could never get a consistent straight answer of whether British pounds sterling was ISO'sd as UKL or GBP.
I've never seen UKL anywhere. The iso code for United Kingdom is
gb
for all purposes with one exception, the national top level domain, which is.uk
.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency. How do you guys write the prices in other currencies?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_symbol :
When writing currency amounts, the location of the symbol varies by language. For currencies in English-speaking countries and in most of Latin America, the symbol is placed before the amount, as in $20.50. In most other countries, including many in Europe, the symbol is placed after the amount, as in 20,50€. Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
It's always been prefix in NL. ƒ100,- pre-Euro, €100,- now.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Incidentally, we could never get a consistent straight answer of whether British pounds sterling was ISO'sd as UKL or GBP.
GBP. The UKL is used very rarely and only by total retards. Notably, one of those retards is FedEx.
-
@Gustav what is the L supposed to mean?
-
@topspin £
-
@topspin Specifically, the £ is a stylised L, a holdover from when our currency wasn't divided into 100 pence but into pounds, shillings, and pence - or L, s and d after the Roman librae, solidi and denarii.
-
-
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Specifically, the £ is a stylised L, a holdover from when our currency wasn't divided
It doesn't have anything to do with the subdivision, just the time the Latin name librae was (also) used. For the same reason the abbreviation for pound as unit is lb. Also the name is based on the Latin version in some other languages—e.g. livre in French, libra in Spanish, libra in Czech etc.
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Unless you pronounce it "dollar forty", too.
When it's $1.40, we do.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
LOL! Somebody had to be a total asshole. I think they belong in the "Things that remind you of WDTWTF members" thread.
-
@TimeBandit said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I'm talking amounts that can actually buy more than a stick of gum
You guys can buy gum for 40¢?
If you're an , you used to be able to.
-
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Exceptionally, the symbol for the Cape Verdean escudo (like the Portuguese escudo, to which it was formerly pegged) is placed in the decimal separator position, as in 2$50.
LOL! Somebody had to be a total asshole. I think they belong in the "Things that remind you of WDTWTF members" thread.
As you just mentioned, it works out when you say it out loud. But imagine having to parse that shit.
-
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@dangeRuss said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It's pronounced forty dollars, but the units are written in the front like any other currency.
cf. 40¢
Yes if we're talking peasant units. I'm talking amounts that can actually buy more than a stick of gum
400kr.
-
@Bulb don’t tell me, tell Wikipedia.