I notice that you didn’t address the answers I did post. You’re welcome to try again.
Sure. Your two answers together suggest that the legitimate and deliberate market for iPhone boxes is $120. Are you shitting me?
Third time’s the charm: care to straight-up answer the questions I asked above? Here they are again, numbered for your convenience:
- Would you explain what you think the honest market is for pictures of iPods that are BRAND New in BOX?
- Is this something that’s a hot commodity?
- Do you genuinely think there is anyone out there wanting to purchase such a picture and for whom the BRAND New in BOX is a key selling point for the photograph?
- Do you genuinely think the seller was intending to be forthright and intended no trickery?
If you only want to do one, try the last one, and a yes or a no will be enlightening enough.
No. Is the “legitimate and deliberate market for iPhones” $120?
Of course not. It’s called “caveat emptor”. And “due diligence”. Something “daddy state” liberals have no idea about.
Actually, in an auction setting, sometimes yes–folks set starting prices low in an attempt to draw bidders’ interest.
Wrong. Those are the buyers’ responsibilities. I agree about those. But I asked about the seller’s actions here, and the seller’s actions aren’t the same thing.
It appears you’re admitting they were intending trickery. Is that right?
Yes, but if the bidder expects to actually buy the iPhone at $120 then he is expecting to “trick” the seller. If he is “tricked” instead, that’s fair.
“Trickery” yes. Just like the guy in the OP was intending “trickery” - where “trickery” is not allowing voters who can’t be bothered to find out to deny him the vote on the basis of race. In the case of the Ebay seller “trickery” is getting someone who can’t be bothered to actually read the description to overpay him for the product he is selling.
If the buyer doesn’t bother to attend to his “responsibilities” and overpays - is it the seller’s fault? Because if you say it is, then you’re not serious about those actually being “responsibilities”.
You don’t seem to be clear on the idea of a trick. The idea of a trick is that you try to get someone to believe something that isn’t true. Bidding on an auction item at an allowed auction price is not a trick.
Okay. Is it your understanding of fraud law that if your fraud only fools people who don’t do due diligence, it’s not really fraud?
Are you claiming that those auctions were against the “fraud law”?
No. Assuming we’re not playing “questions,” I wonder if you’d like to answer.
If “fraud law” doesn’t apply what is the relevance of your question?
Basic underlying principles. Last chance to answer before I figure you’re weaseling out of straightforward conversation.
Since the EBay auctions have nothing to do with “fraud laws”, and neither does the case in the OP, the question is irrelevant to this thread. If you want a conversation about that, start another thread. And no, I don’t really care what you think about “weaseling”.
Well, that’s fortunate.
If you liked your vote for what you thought was a black man you supported, you get to keep your vote for a white man you supported.
Why would your support change once you found out he was white?
The radio add was the best part of this entire campaign…
If you liked him because of his endorsements, and then found out that his endorsements were lies, should your opinion change?
Elections have consequences. Especially when those who can vote are ignorant as a rock.
Sure, hookers and blow, but only when it’s Pubs victimizing themselves with it.
Most cons involve the mark fooling themselves, or otherwise rely on taking advantage of the mark’s greed and/or pride and/or dishonesty.
Cons are pretty safe and profitable to run *specifically *because most people are greedy, proud liars whether they admit it to themselves or not. In this particular example the mark is expected to *know *the item purportedly being sold isn’t worth that little money, but would rather profit from such a stoopid salesman who doesn’t know the real value of what they’re selling than being honest and telling them that an iPhone’s worth more. Else to believe the guy’s selling a jacked iPhone and don’t care. In both cases, the con works, and the mark is unlikely to cry foul and thus broadcast their own failings. In both cases, the con runs entirely off the buyer’s petty dishonesty.
They’re still cons. That’s why they’re called “cons” and not “advertisement strategies”, even though I’m aware there’s some cross-pollinating going on in that particular Venn diagram.
(As an aside, it’s kind of a shame **Terr **hasn’t picked law as his profession and/or field of expertise ; and if he has, hasn’t reached the higher spheres of lawyerdom. I would have paid good money to hear, say, his defence of Bernie Madoff :
“Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client pleads innocence on the grounds that the plaintiffs are a bunch of suckers who deserved to get took for believing they could really make that kind of steady money doing nothing. Your Honour, the defence rests.”)
If the plaintiffs put their money into S&P500 during that time, they would have achieved about the same returns as Madoff provided (until he crashed and burned). So those returns were nothing special. What was “special” and suspicious was the returns’ consistency, not the size.
You know from my posts that I am about as conservative as it comes, but I strongly disagree with you here. There is simply no public policy considerations to allow someone to sell a digital picture of an IPhone for $120. There is no such market; nobody clamoring to pay money for something that is available for free all over the internet.
The only purpose is to fool unsuspecting bidders into believing that they are buying an actual IPhone. Yes, I know it says “picture” right in the ad, but we both know that the scam is to hope that a few people don’t read carefully and pay anyways. There is no reason to reward these “sellers” by allowing such deceit to stand.
What free market principles are violated by voiding these type of contracts? Do you believe that shutting down the “$120 IPhone picture” market will hurt commerce?