There’s a general problem with low friction transactions being used to exploit people with diminished capacity, particularly when intermediaries are involved (another common one in UK is signing them up for multiple phone contracts) and there may be some regulatory innovation possible in this area. Punishment after the fact is not sufficient if it doesn’t adequately prevent this population being exploited.

I think the important part is that both parties go into the transaction with full information and a genuine meeting of the minds, which is obviously not the case in this market.

I use eBay's "Buy It Now" functionality all the time, in preference to the "Wait 7 days and deal with snipers" auctions. I fully know that I'm trading low-price for low-friction.

That laserdisc player is only jokingly a life changing transaction.

I see no reason to excuse fraud and deception, those are not convenient low friction services.

I see no reason to ignore how there is supposed to be a take-backs provision which they are merely getting around, producing exactly the outcome those provisions were created to prevent.

What is someone who owns a house but has reduced mental capacity supposed to do? The house is worth $500k, someone offers them $300k, the person doesn't have the mental capacity to shop around... I'm just not sure what the right solution here is. I'm afraid it would be even worse if they weren't allowed to sell.