Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin, I would suggest that you read California Civil Code section 1572 for the relevant definition of "fraud," not the dictionary. eBay, with headquarters in California, specifies that its User Agreement is to be interpreted under California law. Granted, listing property for which one does not have title or the authority to transfer title does not necessarily rise to the level of a criminal offense until someone suffers damages (at which point civil liability is also an issue), but it clearly is a violation of eBay's User Agreement - which everyone who lists an item agrees to follow. A finding of fraud does not require "deliberate deception" nor "unfair or unlawful gain." I would not rely on the dictionary to render legal advice any more than I would use it to render medical advice. Bryan (yes, an attorney) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Zoom Saga > > Please look up the > > definition of fraud in a dictionary!!!!!! > > Two things to your more or less irrelevant post. > > One, YES go look up fraud, and make sure YOU read it: > > "A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful > gain." > > What do you believe was the fraud, and also note, do you have any evidence > that shows this was clearly done as a "deliberate deception"? You have to > show 1) deliberate deception AND 2) unfair or unlawful gain. Neither of > those can hardly be substantiated. > > Look up the word REASONABLE in the dictionary. If the seller has a > REASONABLE expectation that s/he made arrangements to have clear ownership > of the item, there was nothing unlawful. Obviously there was NO deliberate > deception intended either, so it isn't fraud. A mistake, yes, fraud NO. > > Second. This is a CIVIL matter. Unless 'someone' can show damages, and > they HAVE TO BE MONETARY in this case, claiming emotional distress is absurd > (though it would appear some of you might try!), you have no case, period. > The reserve on the auction was NOT met, and anyway, if it was, the auction > was not run to completion, and the ONLY person who could have any case would > have been the winning bidder, and since there was no winning bidder, NO > CASE. > > I hope you didn't waste any money on that attorney... > > My God, get over this! >