RE: [Leica] Zoom Saga

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

> 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.

How about you post that law here and enlighten me?  Since your 'are' an
attorney, you should know this is absurd to claim this was fraud and it
wouldn't even pass the laugh test in court.  No one was injured.  There is
no plaintiff...

> but it clearly is a violation of eBay's User Agreement -
> which everyone who lists an item agrees to follow.

Please cite the section of the eBay user agreement that CLEARLY this is
against.  As you should know, since you say you are an attorney, what the
word REASONABLE is WRT the law.  All the seller had to have was a reasonable
assertion that s/he had consummated a deal to acquire this item.  It's
called a mistake, not fraud.

Oh, and by the way, eBay does not make the laws.  Whether it's against eBay
rules or not, has nothing to do with it being legal or illegal or it even
possibly being fraud.

> 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.

I don't just use any old dictionary, for this I use a legal dictionary,
thanks.  Since you're a lawyer, what type of fraud would this be?  And yes,
in this case, to prove fraud, it would have to be deliberate and in all
fraud cases there has to be injury.  Please prove me wrong by citing the
California laws WRT fraud, and, of course, provide precedent cases that
support your claim.

Any suit in this matter would be called, with out a doubt, frivolous.  We do
need tort reform...especially when attorneys want to claim something this
silly is fraud.  There are so many other REAL frauds out there to keep you
busy...