Hacker News Reader

It appears to me that the seller was, in your analogy, misrepresenting the condition of the house. This is my totally unscientific analysis based on my private random sample of accounts I interact with, so, not particularly robust as a decision making tool for a big sale.

View on HN

In the analogy, the contract was done with no intentional representations by the seller at all, and the buyer waived contingencies/bought as-is.

It’s almost impossible for a seller to misrepresent anything material in that situation.

The issue being that Twitter actually did (afaik) make various representations about bots, spam, paid actors, etc and the validity of those representations was later called into question. So the analogy as originally proposed at the top of this thread is a misrepresentation.

None beyond their normal public filings I believe, which are highly qualified and if wrong beyond those qualifications they’d have been in hot water a long time ago. In the analogy, it would be like claiming the Public appraisals/tax records with the county were lies all of the sudden (when they aren’t) to try to get out of the deal.

But if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com