Options
You Gotta Admire The Genius of America
storm888
Posts: 11,701 ✭✭✭
Folks Who Bite Get Bitten. Folks Who Don't Bite Get Eaten.
0
storm888
Posts: 11,701 ✭✭✭
storm888
Posts: 11,701 ✭✭✭
storm888
Posts: 11,701 ✭✭✭
storm888
Posts: 11,701 ✭✭✭
Comments
$170 for an empty box with a picture of lennon on it.
nice thread Storm, makes me believe in humanity again
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
Justice
Sucker born every minute
That transaction got voided - yet the person left positive feedback...
"Thanks again for voiding this transaction-- hope to do business with you again"
Seller definitely has intent to deceive - started the bidding at $99...
Completed my Clemente Basic Registry (2007 - 2014)!
Positive transactions with oakesy25,jasoneggert,swartz1,MBMiller25,gregm13,kid4hof03,HoopGuru33,Reese3333,BPorter26,Davemri
I put as much blame on the buyers here. You need to learn to read people.. When you read its pretty obvious you are getting the box only.
<< <i>I put as much blame on the buyers here. You need to learn to read people.. When you read its pretty obvious you are getting the box only. >>
Still, the seller's is being predatory and his primary goal here is to catch someone unaware, not to make an honest buck.
WTB: 2001 Leaf Rookies & Stars Longevity: Ryan Jensen #/25
ok.
Steve
I have zero sympathy for a buyer who can't take 15 seconds to read a description before spending $170. Are we that busy?
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
Steve
I have zero sympathy for a buyer who can't take 15 seconds to read a description before spending $170. Are we that busy?
John "
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
That defense does not fly in court.
Such sellers should be in prison.
It is not OK to steal from stupid or busy people.
John
HOF SIGNED FOOTBALL RCS
John "
/////////////////////////////
Watch the brief Judy clip; there are lots of ways to "steal."
Justice
<< <i>"steal? someone looked at an ebay auction that says exactly what they are selling, someone bids on it, and that is stealing?
John "
/////////////////////////////
Watch the brief Judy clip; there are lots of ways to "steal."
Justice >>
/////////////////////////////
I hate Judge Judy.
////////////////////////////////
Ditto.
In this case, her decision is well founded.
The scam sellers are gaming the SYI-forms and item-specifics and search-results by
listing the "boxes" as the ACTUAL items that the boxes once contained.
A prosecutor in virtually any jurisdiction would take a look at such a circumstance, if
it was called to his/her attention.
Unscrupulous? Yes.
Illegal? Doubtful.
However, if the weight of the phone was not shown in the ad, how would Judge Judy have found in the Plaintiff's favor? She presides in a court of LAW, not a court of decency... The buyers got lucky because the scamming seller was an idiot.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
The reason I dislike her show so much is that she DOES preside in
a "court of decency."
Actually, it is an "equity court;" just as more and more small-claims
courts have now become.
JJ participants sign what amounts to an "arbitration agreement."
Once the are on the show, their legal claims have already been
dismissed by the court in which they were filed. They agree to
abide by the arbitration, notwithstanding the fact that the case
will/may be decided on "equity" and NOT on "law."
The litigants are each paid 50% of the pot going in. The contest
is to see who gets the pot.
In any event, the subject EBAY cases involve theft-by-deception and
are definitely actionable by anybody who gets sucked in.
(N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4)
The defendant is charged with committing the offense of theft by deception. A person is guilty of this form of theft if (he/she) purposely obtains property of another by deception.
(If appropriate here define, as applicable: "Property" (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-lg) or "Property of another" (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-1h).
The State therefore must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following three elements of the crime:
First, the State must prove, that the defendant obtained the property (monies) of another.
(Charge here if applicable:
"Obtain" means to bring about a transfer or an apparent transfer of a legal interest in the property, either to the defendant (himself/herself) or to another person.)
Second, the State must prove that the defendant purposely obtained that property by deception. "Purposely" means that it was defendant's conscious object to deceive and thereby to obtain the property in question.
A person deceives if (he/she) purposely:
(Charge only appropriate portion or portions:
(1) Creates or reinforces a false impression, including false impressions as to law, value, intention or other state of mind. However, you are not to infer deception as to defendant's intention to perform a promise from the mere fact that (he/she) did not in fact perform that promise. The State must present some other facts to prove that (he/she) originally made the promise with no intention of carrying it out.
or
(2) Prevents another from acquiring information which would affect (his/her) judgment of a transaction.
or
(3) Fails to correct a false impression which (he/she) originally created or reinforced, or which (he/she) knew to be influencing another person with whom (he/she) stands in a confidential relationship or position of trust. If the defendant stood in such a relationship of trust or confidence with the victim, (he/she) had a duty to correct that false impression.)
Third, the State must prove that the victim relied upon the deception which caused (him/her) to part with (his/her) property. If the victim did not turn over property in reliance on any deception, then you may not find the defendant guilty of obtaining the property by deception.1
(Charge here if applicable:
The term "deception," however, does not include falsity as to matters having no significance as to money or value, or puffing or exaggeration by statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed.2
Further, not only must the defendant's statements or other core communications have been false, but the defendant must have known this. If you find that the defendant in fact believed in the accuracy of the impression created or reinforced, you must find him or her not guilty of theft by deception even though (his/her) belief in the accuracy of the impression created or reinforced was unreasonable.3
Now if you find that the State has failed to prove any one or more of these elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty of theft by deception. If you find, however, that the State has proved all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of theft by deception.4
(If affirmative defense of claim of right is raised, charge here as applicable. N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2c)
(If applicable, charge here on Gradation of Theft Offenses. (N.J.S.A. 2C:20-2b)
1 State v. Marvin Mann, 244 N.J. Super. 622 (App. Div. 1990)
2 Language in the previous charge stating that it is no defense that a reasonable person would not have been misled was deleted by the Committee because of its apparent inconsistency with the last paragraph of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-4. See The New Jersey Penal Code: Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, Volume II: Commentary, at 233. for the source of the deleted language.
3 The New Jersey Penal Code, Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Revision Commission, Volume II: Commentary, note 1, at 224-225.
4 Where the facts so warrant the Court should charge attempted theft, which is a lesser-included offense, which need not be separately charged in the indictment. See State v. Mann, 244 N.J. Super, 622 (App. Div. 1990).