Scammer tag: PatrickHarnett

[SgtSpike]

I'll have to disagree with you here JoelKatz.

The contract was made on assumptions that Patrick made, sure.  But that doesn't mean he can back out of his contract scot-free just because his assumptions were wrong.

If the bank loans me $1,000, and I wanted to use that $1,000 to invest in a business that I assumed to be risk-free, but it turns out the investment DID have risk, and I lost the $1,000, would the bank just let me off the hook?  Nope, they'd still want me to pay back the loan, regardless of what my assumptions were and how those assumptions turned out.  Would they hit my credit score when I failed to pay the loan back?  Of course they would!

We're hitting Patrick's Bitcoin community "credit score" because he failed to hold up his end of the bargain.  It doesn't matter that he didn't realize he was investing in BS&T passthroughs - that was a failure on his part to do due diligence, and it is his responsibility to own up to that mistake and still make payments according to the contract.

Now, if he had worded the contract with a clause something like "If my investments fail, then your investment with me is worth nothing," then I can definitely see a case for NOT giving him a scammer tag.  Otherwise, this is nothing more than him failing to hold up his end of the agreement, and he should get the scammer tag until he makes good on the promises made to those he contracted with.

[1715172143]

1715172143

[1715172143]

1715172143

[JoelKatz]

I don't think that the 'we both made a mistake' idea is helpful here. Obviously they both made a mistake.

If they both made a mistake, and that mistake caused a loss, then they should split the loss.

When, I lend to someone and 'we both made a mistake', it is the debtor's responsibility to take the hit for the creditor.

No, that's not so. If the creditor makes a mistake, the creditor is responsible for the harm that mistake caused the debtor.

If I make an equity investment and 'we both made a mistake', then the investor takes the hit.

It depends who makes the mistake.

If so, I have some 'mistaken' student loan debt to clear. Is there a court of JoelKatz available somewhere?

If both you and the entity you borrowed from made a common mistake that caused the loss, then you should split the mistake. It doesn't matter if it's student debt or not.

I'll have to disagree with you here JoelKatz.

The contract was made on assumptions that Patrick made, sure.  But that doesn't mean he can back out of his contract scot-free just because his assumptions were wrong.

They're not "assumptions that Patrick made". They're beliefs that both parties to the contract had, without which neither of them would have entered into the agreement. And I never said he could "back out of his contract scot-free".

If the bank loans me $1,000, and I wanted to use that $1,000 to invest in a business that I assumed to be risk-free, but it turns out the investment DID have risk, and I lost the $1,000, would the bank just let me off the hook?  Nope, they'd still want me to pay back the loan, regardless of what my assumptions were and how those assumptions turned out.  Would they hit my credit score when I failed to pay the loan back?  Of course they would!

Right, because that's not a common mistake. That's a mistake made by only one party. I'm talking about a common mistake. (Please see my example of the contract to purchase a partial interest in a car.)

We're hitting Patrick's Bitcoin community "credit score" because he failed to hold up his end of the bargain.  It doesn't matter that he didn't realize he was investing in BS&T passthroughs - that was a failure on his part to do due diligence, and it is his responsibility to own up to that mistake and still make payments according to the contract.

That's ridiculous. Those lending to Patrick made precisely the same failure with precisely the same consequences.

Now, if he had worded the contract with a clause something like "If my investments fail, then your investment with me is worth nothing," then I can definitely see a case for NOT giving him a scammer tag.  Otherwise, this is nothing more than him failing to hold up his end of the agreement, and he should get the scammer tag until he makes good on the promises made to those he contracted with.

The contract couldn't have had such a clause because neither side believed that situation was possible. The contract simply doesn't say what happens in that case. There is no equitable reason Patrick should take the entire hit. It is only equitable to split it. Both parties are equally culpable, both parties made the same mistake. The contract doesn't say who bears the costs because neither party thought that would happen.

If there's evidence that either Patrick or his lenders believed this outcome was reasonably possible, then my argument doesn't work -- it's not a common mistake. But it's quite clear that Patrick would not have loaned money if he believed this was possible. It's idiotic -- he'd just invest in Pirate himself. And similarly, his lenders would not have lent to him if they believed this was possible -- they'd just have invested in Pirate themselves. Both parties were victims of dishonest borrowers.

[John (John K.)]

PM-ed Patrick to let him know the existence of this thread. It should be made mandatory that the parties involved should receive a notice by the form of PM/email after making an accusation thread.

[SgtSpike]

I still completely disagree with you Joel.  It doesn't matter what Patrick's plans with the money was - he agreed to pay back at a certain rate for a certain period of time.  He failed to do so.  He broke the contract.  That's all that matters.

[cunicula]

I don't think that the 'we both made a mistake' idea is helpful here. Obviously they both made a mistake.

Joel. I'd be fine with this if it was always transparent who made a mistake. However, courts cannot figure this out in most cases. Thus you make simple, predictable rules that assign responsibility independent of who is at fault. That is what civil law should be about (I think).

In other cases, courts can figure out who made a mistake. Then the court can assign blame. That is what criminal law should be about (I think).

In clear-cut cases you assign blame, in vague cases you default to simple, predicatable rules.

The simple predictable rule here is that the debtor is always responsible for his debt (at least before bankruptcy law)

[Chang Hum]

Taking a more abstract point of view, I hope this thread highlights it's a bad Idea to hand you're irreversible digital currency over to even arguably the most trusted "i'll take care of ya money men" on this forum!

I'm shocked that more people on this forum desperate to make 1% a week on their money haven't heard of a site called betfair where you can lay really shit horses and get 1%. Personally I think this is a terrible idea, but it's certainly would give you much better odds of a return than any of the joke investment opportunities on this forum.

As Joel's explained borrowing money at crazy interest rates to people at insane interest rates isn't a sane business model, at least it kind of makes sense that a really a shit horse is likely to lose!

[JoelKatz]

I still completely disagree with you Joel.  It doesn't matter what Patrick's plans with the money was - he agreed to pay back at a certain rate for a certain period of time.  He failed to do so.  He broke the contract.  That's all that matters.

It absolutely does matter when both parties to a contract assume a particular state of affairs and that neither party would have entered into the contract had they known that their common belief was incorrect. This principle is a very narrow one, but one required by equity. Quoting Lord Acton, "A mistake will not affect assent unless it is a mistake of both parties, and is as to the existence of some quality which makes the thing without the quality essentially different from the thing as it was believed to be." This is exactly what we have here, a mistake that affects assent because it is a mistake of both parties and it is as to the existence of some quality that makes the thing different from what it was believed to be.

His agreement to pay back the loan at a certain rate for a certain period of time was clearly dependent on the shared belief that his loans were independent of Pirate exposure. Both parties discussed this common belief and relied on it when they entered into the agreement. It is absolutely inequitable to make one party to an agreement bear the full cost of a shared mistake made equally by both parties.

The simple predictable rule here is that the debtor is always responsible for his debt (at least before bankruptcy law)

That's not helpful. The challenge is figuring out what "his debt" is. See my example of the payment for partial interest in a car. Sure, the buyer is responsible for "his debt", but the question is whether he in fact owes the payment. That's the same problem we have here. When a promise to pay is predicated on a belief shared by both parties and without which neither party would have entered into the agreement, figuring out how much is owed is not simple. You can't just look to the contract.

Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?

The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.

The problem with simple rules is that sometimes you don't have simple cases.

[davout]

It is absolutely inequitable to make one party to an agreement bear the full cost of a shared mistake made equally by both parties.

So PatrickHarnett should either refund 50% of the loan on his own funds or get a scammer tag, because right now, I see only one party bearing the cost of what you argue (and which I do not argue one way or another) is a shared mistake.

[JoelKatz]

So PatrickHarnett should either refund 50% of the loan on his own funds or get a scammer tag, because right now, I see only one party bearing the cost of what you argue (and which I do not argue one way or another) is a shared mistake.

A 50% refund would certainly be one equitable resolution of the mistake. It's not the only one.

Patrick claims he has been making reasonable payments on all his outstanding debt. I have no idea how much debt he has outstanding or what kinds of payments he has been making.

I agree that a scammer tag would be completely appropriate if Patrick has been making unreasonably small payments on any of his outstanding debts, hasn't been open about his repayment schedule, hasn't been keeping his repayment schedule, or has proposed an unreasonable repayment schedule.

It's entirely possible that Patrick can't, or won't, cover his fair share of these losses. Whether that's due to intentional fraud or just lack of resources despite his best efforts, I absolutely agree it would justify a scammer tag.

[MPOE-PR]

on the common understanding that he had no or limited Pirate exposure.

No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.

This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.

If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....

Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.

Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?

Frankly, Joel, I think you just enjoy taking the contrarian stand. That's fine, but just put a label on your stuff "I'm only stating this nonsense because I enjoy trying to make impossible arguments".

Am I the only one who after reading the transcript, does not understand what is wrong other than the allegation that a deposit has not been paid back in a timely manner.     Could the OP please summarize what is actually the issue so we can weigh the evidence.  Just posting some logs out of context and having someone passionately arguing with the OP using Pirate references is not enough. 

I want your argument so I can weigh it.



Appreciated,
Dalkore

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

[MPOE-PR]

As for him paying back slowly; so are a few other labeled scammers. Im all for removing the tags once they paid everything back.

Exactly. The problem here is that he's not even making enough payments to cover interest.

Here's his scam in simple terms:

I. Do the Peter Lambert thing: pretend like you know what you're doing, give out ratings, all that jazz.
II. Take deposits, recallable on demand, at a reasonable rate (1% was, back in August, pretty much tiny).
III. Refuse to repay deposits.
IV. Make a "best effort" repayment of about .9% a week.

This is an out and out scam. Better designed than pirate's, sure, but just as much a scam.

The only other way you could look at it would be "How to sell miner bonds without any miner gear, and without the risk of difficulty dropping". Also a scam.

I'd say there's a bit a difference between PH who's paid back half the money and is making reasonable progress

To date, he's paid less than half the interest or something like 3% of the money. Do the math eh?

Each side had substantially the same information and made substantially the same mistake.

No, seriously, what are you talking about? How does each side have substantially the same information?

At this point, what exactly is your relationship to the scammer? Are you being paid to shill?

Patrick claims he has been making reasonable payments on all his outstanding debt. I have no idea how much debt he has outstanding or what kinds of payments he has been making.

Quite willful ignorance from someone who's contributed half the words to this thread. The numbers are staring you in the face: 500 BTC going out from lender to borrower. ~15-20 BTC coming out from borrower to lender, two-three months later.

500 * 1.01^14 = 574.7371066; 20 / 574.737106619 = 0.034798519. Was that so hard?

And finally, to the scammer himself, who "is not going to fan the flames": fuck you, asshole.

[augustocroppo]

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

Still, you did not provided the evidence required.

Where is the contract that you both signed to a third party verify the legitimacy of your claims?

[MPOE-PR]

The contract couldn't have had such a clause because neither side believed that situation was possible.

Except for

Quote
I would be more interested in how many reserves the "trust" still has. E.g. what would happen if the 10 biggest accounts cash out at the same time. Right now.

This.

Scenario.

I. Buy, borrow or steal 1k btc.

II. Open Krakken Bank of Bitcoin, October 1st (as we all know krakken eat pirates). Offer 7% per week to investors. At this point it makes sense strategically to open it only to "selected" investors - most everybody isn't interested anyway so you gain some "mystique" that costs nothing.

III. 1st of November. Collected a few hundred in principal, paid maybe 10-20 BTCs from your 1k. BuKK stands at a few hundred btc invested + the goodwill of paid investors, you stand at ~980 BTC.

IV. 1st of December. Collected about 1k BTC in principal, paid ~200 BTC from your 1k. BuKK stands at 1k invested, buzz is starting to fly. You're ~750 BTC.

V. 1st of January. Collected 2-3k BTC, paid pretty much the remainder of your original balance. Start making little noises here and there about how you "own" the bitcoin market and delicately suggest to people that your moves actually have any impact (a ludicrous concept, but it served the bankers of old fiat well).

VI. 1st of February. Things start to balloon from here. BuKK principal is easily over 10k BTC, growth rates in the 10 to 20% range each week. Replenish your original 1k with some fringe just in case, pay the suckers their "interest" from the growth rate like any serious pirate/krakken/anything else designed-to-fail ponzi scheme. Do a lot of mouthing about imaginary investment opportunities irl or at the irl/btc interface that somehow magically net you what no business in the ~1000 years of business history ever made and each hyip in the ~10000 years of hyip history always claimed.



VII. Fail. A well, certainly not the first time, certainly not the last time, it's a pity to let a sucker keep its bitcoin and all that. Not like any lessons are liable to be learned or anything of the sort.

What's that, June? September? May? Heck, with a little luck it might even survive till the reward halving.

(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.msg854918#msg854918)

I expect an apology, JoelKatz.

[MPOE-PR]

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

Still, you did not provided the evidence required.

Where is the contract that you both signed to a third party verify the legitimacy of your claims?

The legitimacy of the claim is not disputed. Heck, the scammer is not only taking the Nefario route to PR, but moreover the address was listed in his list of depositors that he himself maintained for the entire interval.

I decided to capture the last sixteen characters of the deposit address as that is harder to trace, and anyone may request their address/information be removed.  I'm also likely to simply edit/update this particular message than clutter the thread.

 2-Nov-12 9:30 a.m.  (UTC+13)

Code:

Address  	   Balance
YzmKy6QGZ42giAvP	2164.8220
ED5tnPErq5GFixns	1122.0505
wqSKS4u5zajKMaue	1059.4294
7BmhoeTnPaENyUgo	674.9557
ED5tnPErq5GFixns	662.9718
6pg4NhcoVqCcP3W7	519.5491
PsHCai6pF2UH1475	512.4838
F5iNjvHAwEJGaDyX	480.2990
..	345.2324
w2QDq5CkRjfnaRae	341.8231
LgdPH3ZSnnHVnukL	335.0771
wHpp7P58pr3TUE6u	333.7647
39dVpU7GL2ByGUm4	268.3168
ASDh4a58NLZgZ1H9	267.1016
4PxjjymkZzowJwFj	226.5697
cNwkyQaZAQhaYjjD	213.7370
2seux6gEKzvPu3mb	131.1495
JM4i5jUKgAHx1mT9	123.0876
1k1v21HjscirRaq7	111.7313
t2ReQDVCkTSkNHoN	110.4658
BbgCusBmMqe5Knot	101.6878
Fqh6WbHKVjeyeiLb	99.0000
i9a94q4pPKLTNvGB	99.0000
oPf9LdHJS6SzgwCc	96.0000
zfeaNKpjCGjdBtp8	96.0000
sUfAT86PpZjn65eE	78.9661
AsDTL2W3Fiqtay39	71.8884
fmbgmVFGyE8CdwGo	67.0742
i62ewviw6ie969ku	58.7401
bKiitNJTT6WYMhLB	56.0000
YnLVHNJNXdupC4oS	52.9306
673PVLs4Rx9dfhbK	51.6079
7AzQa1DsMaRpnn1t	50.9611
jquPPc2f3gteXtCp	49.8432
EqmLAmpGWVGsy5x4	49.7553
m1iFZx1Y94B5vRE5	48.9212
zP3tCq4aRSUmusyJ	48.5463
uTcxgkJCagsUZisM	48.3971
8ed2G6iijWFZFC8y	41.6169
gJLEPSMhytDfymGr	40.8146
yxLQxPj69Jfz8QTj	31.3680
wqmamk7DPH1zFTGL	29.5142
rUmC2RLVWMnm9NuS	28.5553
0	27.4674
pfizuVzfM499G8N6	26.9104
2ByNQd7UamK4R4ME	24.3592
h5XbGV15kWEdcVwV	21.0000
85sGWfHpKFdb5iEa	20.9194
8uaehBnd1hXTv767	20.6347
Xvje9vkyqBhisD2b	18.7225
Fmirn4mBCqK41FNw	16.4846
7ePuNsWbaFDqdAVZ	16.3813
3MP2mpWgVGvAYkqU	11.5802
2wB6jpPNeFNtNB4Q	6.7845
jF92fjEjQrALmaFL	6.3253
syRzBTKSPgmD2Dcn	0.6865

[JoelKatz]

No. It was based on Patrick's representation to that effect. Your attempts to represent this as a "common mistake" are unseemly and quite frankly are doing a lot of damage to your own credibility.

What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?

This turned out to be incorrect. It's not clear that this is Patrick's fault. This fault is equally on both sides of the agreement.

If I offer to sell you a house and you pay me money, except my house doesn't really exist would you say that the fault is equally on both sides of the contract? Because in that case I have a bridge....

It might or might not be equally on both sides of the contract, that would depend on the example. But if it was in fact equally on both sides of the contract, then it would be inequitable to enforce the contract as agreed. (I gave two examples that clearly show this. You are welcome to address them. But you can't just create an example where there isn't a common mistake, show that there's no common mistake in your example, and then try to argue that has some relevance to a contract that does have a common mistake.)

Patrick has stated in another thread that he is paying this debt back the same way he is paying back similar debts. He is taking responsibility for his share of the common mistake and his lenders should do the same.

Bullshit. "The same way he is paying similar debts", what's that even mean? You make a contract, you stick to that contract or else you are in default. Nobody cares and it makes no difference that you "are doing it differently now". What is this Patrick, the Government of Bitcoin?

The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.

No, seriously, what are you talking about? How does each side have substantially the same information?

Both Patrick and those who loaned him money understood his business model and the rates he charged. They both equally understood that he asked people whether they were investing in Pirate and made clear that this was unacceptable. It's not like Patrick had evidence of correlated risk that he had from his investors, at least not the we know of.

Deposit was made, as per an agreement. Deposit was not returned, as per the agreement.

Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.

As for your quote from another thread, I can't quite understand the relevance. Are you saying you were aware that there was a high probability that Patrick's loans had significant correlated risk due to exposure to Pirate?

At this point, what exactly is your relationship to the scammer? Are you being paid to shill?

I very strongly dislike Patrick. If he was willing to pay me to shill, I'd happily take his money, but he has not yet made such an offer.

Quite willful ignorance from someone who's contributed half the words to this thread. The numbers are staring you in the face: 500 BTC going out from lender to borrower. ~15-20 BTC coming out from borrower to lender, two-three months later.

I've expressed no opinion on whether his repayment schedule is adequate or not. Roughly speaking, if he's on track for 50% within a year, that'd be reasonable in my view. As I said, I'd really like to see him committing to an amount and a schedule and sticking to that commitment.

[MPOE-PR]

What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?

That's immaterial. What proof do you have the lender had exactly the same information as the borrower did?

The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.

Yes, it does. That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened. He did neither, he answered "no". Living up to that "no" is upon him.

Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.

Nothing of the kind. The agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the lender lends and the borrower repays with interest.

The quote from "another thread" has the relevance of pointing out that we were both the first and for a long time the only to clearly state that Pirate is a scam. As such, proposing this theory whereby "nobody knew" that Pirate might have been a scam is ridiculous. The entire point of that agreement is squarely against this.

[JoelKatz]

What information did Patrick have that others didn't have that would have changed the conclusion they drew?

That's immaterial. What proof do you have the lender had exactly the same information as the borrower did?

I never said they had exactly the same information, I said they had substantially the same information. I even explained what information they both had.

The problem is that the contract doesn't cover the case where the loans have correlated risk.

Yes, it does. That's exactly why the negotiations start with "do you have correlated risk X". Had the scammer answered "yes" or even "maybe" the contract would never have happened. He did neither, he answered "no". Living up to that "no" is upon him.

Part of my argument is that Patrick in fact made that mistake. To respond by saying Patrick made that mistake doesn't make sense. I agree that both sides believed that Patrick's loan portfolio had no, or minimal, Pirate exposure and for substantially the same reasons.

Right, but the agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the loans didn't have significant correlated risk.

Nothing of the kind. The agreement was predicated on a mutual understanding that the lender lends and the borrower repays with interest.

So the agreement still would have happened even if Patrick said "Yes, I have significant Pirate exposure"? Bullshit.

The quote from "another thread" has the relevance of pointing out that we were both the first and for a long time the only to clearly state that Pirate is a scam. As such, proposing this theory whereby "nobody knew" that Pirate might have been a scam is ridiculous. The entire point of that agreement is squarely against this.

Somehow we must have some kind of a disconnect somewhere. Of course both knew Pirate was at least very likely to be a scam. That's the whole reason this agreement was constructed the way it was -- to protect against Pirate exposure. The common mistake was the belief that Patrick's loan portfolio didn't have significant Pirate exposure when it actually did.

Both parties willfully ignored the obvious gaping holes in Patrick's business model, despite being repeatedly told what they were. Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.

[MPOE-PR]

I never said they had exactly the same information, I said they had substantially the same information. I even explained what information they both had.

"Substantially" bs. We all have substantially the same information to some imaginary post-hoc standard. There's no whitewashing this, if the scammer didn't have a privileged position with respect to his investments then the contract would have made absolutely zero sense to enter into. Think about it for a moment, your retarded argument can be used to try and weasel out of any agreement ever.

Part of my argument is that Patrick in fact made that mistake. To respond by saying Patrick made that mistake doesn't make sense.

Your argument boils down to: Patrick made a mistake so he shouldn't have to honor contracts (because you presume, without any proof, that everyone else "would" have made the same mistake, and further presume that this amounts to a "everyone else did in fact make the same mistake"). This is just a way of saying Patrick is god. Patrick isn't god, and therefore your entire line is invalid.

So the agreement still would have happened even if Patrick said "Yes, I have significant Pirate exposure"? Bullshit.

Fuck you. The agreement would NOT have happened if the scammer admitted at that time what we now know to be reality. The fact that you do not know this speaks about your ignorance, that's all. What do you think, someone who had zero pirate exposure since the very start, someone (the only one) who turned down pirate's slimy advances in an ultimately doomed bid to protect idiots just like you and made a point of it suddenly changed his mind, and decided to buy a 1% a week pirate passthrough when the 7% real deal was still available?

The common mistake was the belief that Patrick's loan portfolio didn't have significant Pirate exposure when it actually did.

This is not a common mistake. In fact, Patrick's portofolio was neither discussed nor at least considered. The money was lent on Patrick's name and word, nothing else.

Honestly, I'm somewhat disgusted at the righteous indignation of the usurious lenders who refuse to accept any responsibility for their significant role in this fiasco.

So you're against lending, btc business, money, whatever. Your problems, I don't care and they don't amount to arguments against contracts. Seek help.

[fbastage]

looks like Hartnett took the loan, and thus the obligation to repay.  further, he misrepresented his exposure to his creditors.

mistake is his.  scammer/default.

[SgtSpike]

Here's a trivial example: Both parties to an agreement believe a truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries and both believe that $2/pound is a fair price. They agree to sell the cherries for $10,000, based on their common correct belief that cherries are worth $2/pound and their common mistake belief that the truck contains 5,000 pounds of cherries. If it turns out the scale was broken and the cherries actually weigh 4,500 pounds, how much is "his debt"?

The argument would be that you can't look to the contract because the contract doesn't say what happens if the cherries weigh 4,500 pounds. Everything written in the contract is based on the assumption that the cherries weigh 5,000 pounds. (Unless it contains some clause about the weight, of course.) Here, it is clearly unjust to enforce the contract as agreed because the agreement was predicated on the shared belief.

Assuming you mean a buyer and a seller by "both parties," the number of cherries wouldn't make a bit of difference unless mentioned in the contract.  If the buyer didn't do his due diligence in verifying the number of cherries on the truck, and didn't add wording specific to the number of cherries he was receiving, that was his problem.

In the case with Patrick, the number of cherries WAS specified.  Well, the interest rate was, anyway.  And Patrick failed to hold up to that interest rate.  It'd be like the seller of the cherries writing in the contract that he was selling 5000 pounds of cherries, but he only brings 4500 pounds, using the excuse that someone must have stolen the other 500 pounds out of the back of the truck last night.  That doesn't make a bit of difference - the buyer bought 5000 pounds of cherries, not 4500, and unless a new contract can be established (likely with a reduction in price), the seller is in the wrong, not the buyer.

You stick to the word of the contract no matter what.  That is what is enforceable by law.  Assumptions DO NOT MATTER.