We often have to deal with people who make us a promise and then fail to deliver. Though we should know better, we sometimes rely on that promise and our gullibility might end up costing us more than what we initially expected to lose in the event of default.
As it turns out, contract law has a name for disputes arising out of such lies. The rule used by the courts seems simple: if somebody makes a promise that is not fulfilled, that's fine as long as no money is exchanged. The moment somebody accepts money, they have to deliver on that promise.
This simple concept is called Promissory Estoppel. Find out more:
Wikipedia: This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant "stopper plug," referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede."
In my particular case, I was promised Internet access that was not delivered. I relied on that promise and the failure of delivery ended up costing me far more than providing the access would have cost Francois Deribere. It was clear and obvious that I paid for it and it was part of the agreement, as we included a message describing our Internet agreement in the PayPal message of our transaction. Furthermore, I was led to believe I can stay longer and even that promise, seemingly in FD's interest, failed to materialize. It remains to be seen whether LTB will see things my way, or a higher court is a more appropriate forum for this matter to be resolved.