RE: [Leica] Zoom Saga

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

> 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!