Jump Trading sues 79-year-old Carl Sagan fan over wormhole.com domain

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;6RtxY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;6RtxY</a>

Seems that Jump is wrong here, no binding contract was made according to article facts. Acceptance from the seller part seems required:<p>&gt; Contract law says that a quote is not considered an offer and only acceptance of offers makes for a legally binding contract, according to Cornell Law School.<p>&gt; Here’s what needs to happen for a quote to turn into a contract:<p>&gt; - Supplier submits the quote to the client<p>&gt; - The client accepts the quote and issues an order<p>&gt; - The supplier accepts the order<p>&gt; For example, a wedding photographer emails a written quote to a client for $2500 for 10 hours of photography. The client emails back saying they accept the quote and want to proceed with the order. The wedding photographer emails the client again to thank them and confirm that they will do 10 hours of work on a certain date for $2500. A legally enforceable contract has now been established.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freshbooks.com&#x2F;hub&#x2F;estimates&#x2F;is-quote-contract" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.freshbooks.com&#x2F;hub&#x2F;estimates&#x2F;is-quote-contract</a>

Despicable on all levels. Not only was there nothing resembling an offer even made, much less a &quot;contract&quot; signed, Jump also very well knows that 50k for a domain like that is a steal and are more than happy to try and pry it from an old man&#x27;s hands even &quot;requesting and receiving a preliminary injunction to freeze the asset.&quot; I&#x27;d much rather the domain be in the hands of this guy with his cool JavaScript clock than these leeches any day of the week.

These guys have specialized in building super low latency, line of sight microwave networks for trading, across multiple continents (chicago -&gt; nyc, frankfurt -&gt; london, etc):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;25&#x2F;hft-in-my-backyard-ii&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;25&#x2F;hft-in-my-ba...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;features&#x2F;2019-03-08&#x2F;the-gazillion-dollar-standoff-over-two-high-frequency-trading-towers" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bloomberg.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;features&#x2F;2019-03-08&#x2F;the-gazil...</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amsterdamtrader.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;hft-in-my-backyard.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amsterdamtrader.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;09&#x2F;hft-in-my-backyard.ht...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;information-technology&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;private-microwave-networks-financial-hft&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;information-technology&#x2F;2016&#x2F;11&#x2F;priva...</a><p>They employ skills such as kernel driver optimization specialists to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of network card drivers.<p>What the fuck are they doing messing with this? Yikes.<p>edit - I answered my own question. These dudes specialize in arbitrage and being faster than everyone else. The crypto markets are insane with this right now. The professional frontrunners have entered the game.

Sounds like the domain owner threw out what he thought was a preposterous price that no one would accept, in attempt to get the buyer to leave him alone.<p>Little did he know that Jump Trading has already spent $300 million propping up the legitimacy of this blockchain.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;crypto-network-wormhole-hit-with-possible-320-mln-hack-2022-02-03&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;crypto-network-wormhole-h...</a>

I would say this is a valid contract, as much as I don&#x27;t like siding with scummy crypto people (scummy might be redundant here). A contract requires several things to form. According to LLI[1] these are:<p>The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration; capacity; and legality.<p>Jump made an offer of $2,500, Dick said the price is $50k firm, the other party immediately accepted. This was in writing, which gets around the Statute of Frauds given the value of the contract is over $500. This seems very straightforward from a legal perspective. I do think that crypto people are super scummy, but the only remedy available when there has been all the elements of a contract existing but one party reneging is a legal remedy either for specific performance or monetary damages, so it&#x27;s natural that Jump went to court to enforce the, what I would argue is, valid contract.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;contract" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;wex&#x2F;contract</a>

Crypto should indeed disappear down a wormhole to get deposited into the trash dimension.

I don’t see how they can win, as quoting an amount is a negotiating strategy that I’ve personally seen and used on both sides: if they were to win, it would surely have far reaching implications across the business world.

&gt; “I didn’t really want to sell it. I’ve had the same email address for 28 years – it’s like family,” he said.<p>This would be the biggest concern for me. Would you trust yourself to update the email address with every single account&#x2F;organisation you&#x27;ve registered it? I use my personal email even for government-related stuff, there are hundreds of places where I&#x27;ve used it. I wouldn&#x27;t trust myself enough to relinquish my domain for any amount of money.

So many people here saying throwing out a price obligates you to sell at that price. Deals fall apart <i>all the time</i> after a price has been settled on.

I&#x27;m not a lawyer, but here is the crux of the argument:<p>&gt; And while Merryman&#x27;s view isn&#x27;t reflected in the court filings, Goldstein said his &quot;statement that the price is a firm $50,000 could reasonably be understood as a counteroffer, which Jump had the power to accept, thereby forming a contract.&quot;

Completely disgraceful, but not totally unexpected for a company led by a 25 year old &quot;crypto intern&quot;.

&gt; Merryman hadn&#x27;t been serious about selling, he said, throwing out what he viewed as a high offer to get them to go away.<p>Sounds like a bad business practice. I’ve seen this logic in other circles “quote higher for someone you don&#x27;t want to deal with” without acknowledging what is binding.<p>I think a judge is necessary to determine DomainAgent’s brokering role with this specific property owner, because nobody knows and it is the crux of the case.

Disgusting. Jump Trading should be ashamed, but people like that are shameless.

I have a domain that&#x27;s worth maybe a couple of hundred dollars. When I get an occasional request for a quote on it I usually say $350k. I&#x27;d probably actually accept that, but it would be a shock if someone agreed to it, and I sure would not want or expect to be legally bound to the offer price.<p>Their claim is such a reach that I hope the owner doesn&#x27;t pay much in legal expenses.

If (and this is very much an &quot;if&quot;) it really is the case that just an offer can be a binding contact, what happens if you make an offer to two parties in parallel, and both accept? Does the one who accepted later just not get the domain and noone can sue anyone? (no other option makes sense to me, there usually wouldn&#x27;t really be any damages you could sue for either) If so, wouldn&#x27;t it be possible to claim that you sold the domain to someone else for $5 before and get out of needing to sell it?<p>How long does an offer stand? What if someone offered to sell 1 bitcoin for $100 10 years ago, would that offer be still standing and be required to be fulfilled?

For all the armchair lawyers arguing on this, bear the current facts in mind: There is no legally binding precedent that can impel a private person to sell an asset just because they stated what the price was.<p>Merchant law and private seller law are two very different things.<p>I think Goldstein is over-stating and over-reaching what an offer and counteroffer implies.<p>Private sellers of assets and services are free to renege any deal - even after the contract is signed. After the contract is signed, then it is a matter for the courts. No contract was signed or implied to be signed in this case.<p>In a private sale there is no verbal contract law - A: &quot;How much for the lawn mower?&quot; B: &quot;$50 firm&quot; A: &quot;Sold!&quot; B: &quot;I don&#x27;t want to sell.&quot; Verbal or written, there is absolutely no implication of a contract or acceptance of the contract at that point. Though this very much varies by state and would be governed by the state of NV.<p>Just because an entity states they are authorized to act on a deal, does not mean they have that authority. There was a scummy domain broker around a few years ago that would send you a snail mail letter of intent to purchase your domain for a stupid low amount, with a cheque attached, and failure to respond to the letter after a certain number of days indicated your willingness to sell at the offered price. Depositing the cheque indicated your acceptance of the contract. Holding on to (or destruction of) the cheque indicates your acceptance of the contract. I know of quite a few people with high value domains who had to lawyer up to stop the transfers from taking place.

I wish there were a pro bono or law-student organization that would take on cases like this. I actually don&#x27;t know if there&#x27;s a case here but it definitely sounds like legal bullying. Jump Trading suffered no loss by the person backing out of the deal so pushing forward is really obnoxious. Just to make a point against bad behavior like this, I would take up this case if I had the means.

Prince Humperdinck: Surrender.<p>Westley: You mean you wish to surrender to me? Very well, I accept.

The current owner doesn’t want to sell because he doesn’t want to part ways with his current email address.<p>Couldn’t they simply add a provision for this in a deal? Like “we’ll own the domain but we will maintain a redirection for your previous email address to a newer address of your choice”?<p>Or the other way around “we’re buying ownership of certain DNS A records like “www” and “@“.<p>Has this ever been done?

So,<p>1: I think there’s merit to the case in that the domain owner said they’d sell for 50k and that can reasonably be seen as a binding offer. The courts may decide one way or the other, of course. But -<p>2: The offer did not go into any kind of detail on things like when transfer of control would take place! It could be “immediately” or “20 years after the seller’s death”.

Well, I&#x27;m <i>pretty</i> sure you can&#x27;t even directly sue over ownership of a .com domain? You have to submit to UDNP arbitrage first (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.icann.org&#x2F;resources&#x2F;pages&#x2F;help&#x2F;dndr&#x2F;udrp-en" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.icann.org&#x2F;resources&#x2F;pages&#x2F;help&#x2F;dndr&#x2F;udrp-en</a>).<p>It doesn&#x27;t seem they even <i>tried</i> this in this case? So this should be a dismissal right away, albeit at great emotional&#x2F;monetary expense to the original owner. Unfair, but yeah, cryptobros will be cryptobros, and any harm to members of society is just for the good of society, I&#x27;m sure...<p>(Later edit: so, apparently I&#x27;m wrong, and there is no binding arbitration clause. Still, lame action, and this seems the exact situation arbitration is designed for, especially since &#x27;local courts&#x27; is not exactly well-defined for .com...)

if you are going to treat a domain name owner like this, why would shareholders, and potential customers expect to be treated any better.<p>actions advertize louder than popups

Beside the point but the cursor tracking javascript clock thing on wormhole.com is pretty impressive &#x2F; mesmerizing. I haven&#x27;t seen anything like that before.<p>The article doesn&#x27;t seem like a terribly big deal to me. I think both parties are being obnoxious. Essentially squatting on a nice domain name, asking an exorbitant sum for it, and renegotiating after a deal is accepted because you think you &quot;left money on the table&quot; are all obnoxious behaviors. Suing someone over what was never a terribly firm or serious offer also seems obnoxious.

It is not easy to say who is right here.<p>From the little information in the article, it looks like this is how it went down:<p>Jump sent an unsolicited email to Dick, offering $2500 to buy the domain.<p>Dick did not want to sell and phrased that as &quot;The price for wormhole.com is a firm $50000&quot;, expecting nobody would want to pay $50k for it.<p>Can the latter be seen as a binding offer?<p>Given the sum of the circumstances, my feeling is that it can not. A one-line reply to an unsolicited email with a price 20x the initial offering is not really signaling a serious will to sell.

There may be an argument that the sale price has been negotiated. Although I don&#x27;t believe it has, since Jump countered again after the fact with $200k.<p>However the rest of the terms have not been negotiated. Timeline and transfer details have not been discussed.<p>For timeline I suggest: When the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars<p>As for the &quot;transfer ceremony&quot;, I leave that to your imagination

Generally, the UCC sec 2-201 &quot;statute of frauds&quot; requires that agreements for more than $500 for an exchange of goods must be signed, and in writing. Most states have adopted the UCC or this portion of the UCC.<p>An informal (unsigned) written agreement can still satisfy this requirement...so long as it represents the intent of both parties to be bound by the contract. But there is correspondence by the domain owner to Jump that he did not throw out the original $50k price expecting it to be accepted or to form a valid contract. And before that correspondence he didn&#x27;t act like there was a binding agreement.<p>However, the $100k follow-up email by the domain owner would represent a firm offer that would satisfy the statute of frauds. It doesn&#x27;t appear the $100k was accepted, and Jump is suing for the $50k price. Ultimately, they will spend a multiple of the original price on legal fees...to try to get the original price. (That assumes they win at court. I would estimate that there is a &lt;1% chance they win if this goes to trial, or to appeals. They chose the wrong hill to fight on.)<p>Most likely outcome: Jump settles for $100k plus the domain owner&#x27;s legal fees.

I was twisted at first, but now firmly stand against the man, since he disables the right-click menu.

Jump needs to retain new lawyers because their current ones seem to be idiots at face value.

I think the lesson learned here is don&#x27;t reply to offers unless you really want to sell.

Reading the article it looks like the domain owner was leading wormhole cryptocurrency on a bit with counteroffers wormhole agreed to but then he backed out of. There’s probably more to the story then the headline elicits.

Now it will cost legal fees plus a million

Cartoon level evil, Mr. Burns class.

Yuck.<p>I’m sick of living in a society where wealthy people are able to bully and harass others.<p>No corporation would feel bound to honor a price tossed out casually in an email with nothing signed — and it’s disgusting they’re suing an old man to bully him.<p>Why is it crypto people are so gross? — how can I take the current state of crypto seriously when a “major” platform acts like petulant middle schoolers?

The linked article seems to be copied and pasted from here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;jump-trading-sues-over-wormholecom-domain-crypto-blockchain-carl-sagan-2022-4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;jump-trading-sues-over-wormh...</a><p>Not sure what &quot;kqeducationgroup.com&quot; is but it looks illegitimate.

I will have to disagree with most comments here: I’m not sure Jump is to blame here.<p>- $100’000 seems like a rather generous compensation to change your email address.<p>- And most importantly, they simply agreed to his initial demand. And now he’s backing off out of greed. Hell they even agreed to his second counter-offer of $100k and now he wants $200k…