http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/InPerson/MajorPerson/pigeon_drop.htm Has a better explanation. As dumb as it seems, when the two other finders (who are in on the scam) hand over their couple grand, in the excitement and hope of being included the typical mark will play along.
Non-lawyers tend to place too much reliance on written/oral distinctions. With certain narrow exceptions, there is usually no distinction between representing something in writing and representing it orally. Obviously, there is an evidential difference (one is easier to prove) but that’s usually it.
She said it was worth $20,000.
No. He makes no representations as to how much the violin is worth at all. He simply tries to buy it at best price. Half the commercial world would be committing fraud right now if it were fraud to buy something at a price that the purchaser thinks is cheap.
Doesn’t make any difference. The key point is that she is representing that she is willing to pay $15-20,000, when she isn’t.
If you could pull this with a car instead of a musical instrument it would be perfectly legal in Colorado, which has a law that only terms ***in written form *** embody the contract and any conflicting oral representations are void. [C.R.S. 12-6-104(k)(I)©]
That’s not illegal either.
In isolation, saying you’d pay an amount for something that you wouldn’t might not be illegal, but saying it as part of a scam in cahoots with someone else may well be.
The essence of it is a false representation of value by a person who falsely represents that they are independant from the seller, when in fact they are not.
In Australia it would without any doubt whatsoever be a breach of s52 of the Trade Practices Act (misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce).
[sub]Actually that last sentence is wrong, it wouldn’t be a breach of s52 because there’s no corporation involved. But it’d be a breach of the equivalent section under the Fair Trading Act, which says essentially the same thing, but applies to private individuals. I thought I’d better correct that because I know you all care deeply about this. Brought to you by Queensland Law Nerds Anonymous[/sub]
What if she emphasises that she might be willing to pay it? “I might even be willing to pay $15,000 for it myself! I would so like to talk to that boy…”
I know, I know, the courts aren’t as dumb and succeptable to clever wording as it sometimes seems, and the second any conspiracy could be proved it’s fraud, but it’s still fun to ponder the ways you could try and weasel around it.
You answered your own question, Kidd.