Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/03/09

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] RE: Zoom Saga
From: Jim Brick <>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 20:18:33 -0800
References: <00dc01c0a8fd$01765b60$82088ed1@hppav>

Jeez Austin... Engineer, Photographer, Lawyer... only missing Indian Chief!



At 09:30 PM 3/9/01 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:
>> 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

In reply to: Message from "Bryan Caldwell" <> (Re: [Leica] Zoom Saga)