no kidding. thanks, the mention of the court case and the ruling in favor of crypto.com in the article didn't make that clear.
it doesn't matter what the law says in comparison to what actually should happen, and what really matters.
in this case the law sides the rich, instead of siding against the incompetent people who made the mistake.
that doesn't make the law right, or moral, or even justifiable, it just means that the rich likely control legislation in Australia.
it's still crypto.com's fault, and their own money wasn't important enough to them for any validation in the form which the operator entered the wrong data into the "amount" field. they fucked up, no matter what the law says.
the money wasn't stolen, and should not need to be returned. the company that lost the money (literally) gifted it to the customer by mistake, and didn't catch it's own mistake for SEVEN months.
Comments
That might be how you want it to work. But isn't how the laws of Australia work.
no kidding. thanks, the mention of the court case and the ruling in favor of crypto.com in the article didn't make that clear.
it doesn't matter what the law says in comparison to what actually should happen, and what really matters.
in this case the law sides the rich, instead of siding against the incompetent people who made the mistake.
that doesn't make the law right, or moral, or even justifiable, it just means that the rich likely control legislation in Australia.
it's still crypto.com's fault, and their own money wasn't important enough to them for any validation in the form which the operator entered the wrong data into the "amount" field. they fucked up, no matter what the law says.
the money wasn't stolen, and should not need to be returned. the company that lost the money (literally) gifted it to the customer by mistake, and didn't catch it's own mistake for SEVEN months.