LOOK at this eBay Scam...

This is sleazy. I had to scan through that ad three times before I saw the SINGLE clause, buried in the middle, that lets you know he's NOT selling merchandise...vs. the multiple pictures and paragraphs of stats that lead you to believe that he IS selling merchandise.
Ba$tard. Someone's going to come to his house and crack his skull open, and I can't say he doesn't deserve it.
 
[quote name='screwkick']Guy is only selling information on how to get a PSPS for cheap, and yet people are bidding close to $500 for it. Bogus info is at the end of the third paragraph of auction description/

MUST READ FINE PRINT PEOPLE!!!



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=47103&item=5543872839&rd=1[/quote]

this is sick, this is just sick, hopefully he gets banned from ebay but i doubt it bc ebay supports fraud, piracy and selling bullshit.
 
[quote name='cruster']This is sleazy. I had to scan through that ad three times before I saw the SINGLE clause, buried in the middle, that lets you know he's NOT selling merchandise...vs. the multiple pictures and paragraphs of stats that lead you to believe that he IS selling merchandise.
Ba$tard. Someone's going to come to his house and crack his skull open, and I can't say he doesn't deserve it.[/quote]
Even though I only looked at the auction through the link I still had to look twice before I found the one sentence in the middle. True people should read carefully but for those of you saying it's all their fault for not reading a contract, shame on you. If I handed you a 20 page contract for a $1,000,000 a year job you would read it I'm sure. But are you telling me if I buried a clause that screwed you over on the 17th page you would see it. I doubt it. I realize it's only three paragraphs which is a lot different than 20 pages, but still you can't place all the blame on the buyer. Also we know that people have been doing this with different items now for a while so we're more prepared to catch it, so of these people are on Ebay for the first time because of Christmas/holidays and these scammers know it.
 
[quote name='PhrostByte']I'm sorry but if you aren't going to read the 3, not 100, but 3 paragraphs the guy wrote when making such an expensive purchase, maybe you deserve to be scammed?[/quote]

Like somebody who's walking through a dark part of town "deserves" to be mugged and maybe killed?
 
[quote name='PhrostByte']Did anyone else check the item category?
Listed in category: Everything Else > Information Products[/quote]

I was going to mention that. At least he put it in the right section. That is part of the con, though, as most people using eBay don't notice or pay attention to the categories (which are in very small print).

I can not agree that the pertinant information was "clearly stated" as several others have suggested. "Stated" is not the same as "clearly stated". Yes, the information was there, but it was at the end of a paragraph of unrelated information. Had he wanted to be clearly, which he obviously didn't, he would have put it in its own paragraph. He is trying to make it so that when the auction is reviewed later, it may appear that he was being up front about what he was selling, while still keeping it hidden enough from people, who, admittedly, should have read the description more carefully, to make them think they are bidding on the system package.
 
Even though I only looked at the auction through the link I still had to look twice before I found the one sentence in the middle. True people should read carefully but for those of you saying it's all their fault for not reading a contract, shame on you. If I handed you a 20 page contract for a $1,000,000 a year job you would read it I'm sure. But are you telling me if I buried a clause that screwed you over on the 17th page you would see it. I doubt it. I realize it's only three paragraphs which is a lot different than 20 pages, but still you can't place all the blame on the buyer. Also we know that people have been doing this with different items now for a while so we're more prepared to catch it, so of these people are on Ebay for the first time because of Christmas/holidays and these scammers know it.
Click to expand...

As you already mentioned, it's 3 paragraphs. The only reason not to read the whole thing is lazyness. And yeah.. first time ebayers are prime targets, but isn't it those very first time ebayers that should be reading everything a bit more carefully?


Like somebody who's walking through a dark part of town "deserves" to be mugged and maybe killed?
Click to expand...

I think your analogy is flawed. They don't deserve to be mugged, of course not, but they should prepare for it and be capable of defending themselves. Just like the buyer should be prepared that there are people who want to take their cash through fraudulent means on the internet.
 
Well he did put it in informational products and not Video Games -> Systems.

Pretty obvious dude is trying to trick people. I dunno, the buyer's might be SOL if they don't realize the trick before paying.

I guess the buyer could complain he didn't put 'information only' in the title, but then he was in the information category... When I sell an Xbox video game I don't put "Halo 2 (Xbox) Video Game". It's implied by the category.

Look at the history, some sucker bought two. Ouch.

UPDATE: Hmm, I was thinking about my Halo 2 example and don't know if that is really a valid example. When you say 'Halo 2', 99-100% of people are going to think of the video game. Not the strategy guide or a sheet of paper telling you where you can order a copy of Halo 2 for example. So it would make sense to just say "Halo 2" and not "Halo 2 Video Game".

Obviously this is a slimey thing for somebody to do and hopefully none of the buyer's end up really getting scammed out of that money.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='greendj27']He was trying to deliberately mislead people, which is fraud.[/quote]

He may be a dick but this is not fraud. He stated clearly what he was selling. Anyone who took the time to read the listing would know exactly what they were bidding on. Fraud involves a material misrepresentation by one party and here there was none.[/quote]

It is too fraud. He is intending to trick people. That is fraud. Just because he puts some line hidden in the middle to "legally" cover himself, does not mean that this is not fraud.

Look at the title of the auction. It clearly states that the auction is for a PSP Value Pack.
 
This is indeed fraud and if anyone were to fall victim to this, I think they would be able to recover their money. What's the correlation between Technical specs and legal disclosure? None. What piece of work, this guy is!
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']Just because he puts some line hidden in the middle to "legally" cover himself, does not mean that this is not fraud.[/quote]

Fraud is a legal concept. If it is legally not fraud then it's not fraud at all - is there another type of fraud that I am not aware of?

The guy is obviously trying to take advantage of people who don't read the auction - this means he may be a dickhead but it doesn't mean that his actions are fraudulent.
 
"This auction is for a informational document to recieve your PSP cheaper and quicker then some other people.This auction is not for an actual PSP system. This auction is for an informational document which contains ordering information for a PSP system By bidding on this auction you agree that you have read and understand the terms of this auction. absolutely no refunds."

This is the pertinent section in the auction. No way this covers the seller. Cheaper and quicker THEN some other people? Missing periods, incomlete sentences, etc. And there's so much misleading information on there that contradicts the fine print. The specs, the pictures, etc.

Plus, you can't cover yourself completely with contractual language anyway. Just because you write a contract enslaving someone else doesn't mean that contract is enforceable. At the very least, credit card/paypal should refund the buyers and put the seller on their crap list.

I wish I can find out how this ends for the seller, preferably with some kind of financial punishment involved.

P.S. There sure are a lot of ebayers out there who won't read three paragraphs for a $200+ item.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='MorPhiend']Just because he puts some line hidden in the middle to "legally" cover himself, does not mean that this is not fraud.[/quote]

Fraud is a legal concept. If it is legally not fraud then it's not fraud at all - is there another type of fraud that I am not aware of?

The guy is obviously trying to take advantage of people who don't read the auction - this means he may be a dickhead but it doesn't mean that his actions are fraudulent.[/quote]

That's why the word "legally" is in quotes. It doesn't legally cover him. The point is that he deliberately misled people. He knew he was misleading, and if he didn't then he is dumber than the people he screwed. It is fraud.

You can steal someone's house keys, then rob them while they are not home. It is still breaking and entering. Why? Because the definition of B&E is: a trespass into an unoccupied structure to commit a theft or any other felony.

Do you want a definition of fraud now? Here's a list:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:fraud

Have fun.
 
yah, the law has a way of adjusting itself to the current situation at hand. just because he put those couple lines in there doesn't mean he's covered his cheapass. (pun intended). it is obvious when you look at the whole picture he is deliberately trying to mislead people, and that is fraud. case closed.
 
[quote name='weaponx666']Retards that would bid on this auction and not read it all deserve to lose their money.[/quote]

Okay Mister Holier-and-smarter-than-thou-art. I'm sure you consider yourself a somewhat intelligent person. And I also suppose that you have never ever made any type of stupid mistake in your life.

That's what this guy is banking on is stupid mistakes. That is not an honest intention. He is trying to deceive. That constitutes fraud.

I'm so glad that so many of you have never made a dumb mistake in your oh-so-perfect-lives. You have a right to say that these two people made a stupid mistake, or even that they themselves are downright stupid. But that does not change the legal definition of fraud.
 
This person is a leech and an ASS. Pure and simple. It's blatently obvious that he wants to rip people off. Create new account, buy cheap items get good feedback, rip people off, repeat.

Very unethical- it's people like this who ruined Enron- just proves that the Ebay commercials are completly wrong- most people are self interested bastards.

I'll trust someone when they earn it, hopefully no one here ever falls for such a scam.
 
Looks like fraud to me. The people that are calling people dumbasses should look at the ebay ad. If you look, you may change your mind. It looks as if he is selling a PSP. Using tech specs and pictures to make it look like he is selling the actual PSP.

Then hiding the "this is information" BS in the middle makes it obvious the guy is try trick people.


Look at the title!!
SONY PSP PLAYSTATION PORTABLE VALUE PACK!!
GREAT CHRISTMAS GIFT!!!!
Click to expand...

I would love to receive a piece of paper on how to get a PSP!!!!
 
[quote name='almostrice']I would love to receive a piece of paper on how to get a PSP!!!![/quote]

For $506 no less!!! I'm hoping that's what's in my stocking too!
 
[quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='MorPhiend']Just because he puts some line hidden in the middle to "legally" cover himself, does not mean that this is not fraud.[/quote]

Fraud is a legal concept. If it is legally not fraud then it's not fraud at all - is there another type of fraud that I am not aware of?

The guy is obviously trying to take advantage of people who don't read the auction - this means he may be a dickhead but it doesn't mean that his actions are fraudulent.[/quote]

That's why the word "legally" is in quotes. It doesn't legally cover him. The point is that he deliberately misled people. He knew he was misleading, and if he didn't then he is dumber than the people he screwed. It is fraud.

You can steal someone's house keys, then rob them while they are not home. It is still breaking and entering. Why? Because the definition of B&E is: a trespass into an unoccupied structure to commit a theft or any other felony.

Do you want a definition of fraud now? Here's a list:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&oi=defmore&q=define:fraud

Have fun.[/quote]

First of all, I don't understand the relevance of your breaking and entering example. Of course that is true but breaking and entering is a completely different crime/tort than fraud with different elements to prove so I don't see how that has any bearing on whether something is fraud or not.

Second, the only definition that might matter from your google list is this one: "A knowing misrepresentation made with intent of causing another to rely upon it to the latter's detriment" because it is closest to the legal definition of fraud. The others are everyday interpretations of the word which really don't matter in this analysis. What the seller did simply does not fit this definition.

You are confusing misrepresentation with misleading someone. There was no misrepresentation here. The seller stated, in plain English, for all to read what he was selling. He didn't lie, exaggerate or misrepresent. He stated exactly what he was offering. Was it slightly misleading? Maybe - but so is every other advertisement, offer, solicitation or most anything else related to commercial transactions.

It is not for anyone (even the courts) to judge the value of a contract. Just because it looks like the buyer is getting ripped off to you or I doesn't mean something illegal took place. Who's to say that the buyer doesn't know exactly what he is getting? Maybe to be able to buy PSPs "cheaper" like the auction clearly states is of great value to this buyer because he plans on buying in bulk and making a profit. We don't know and the courts won't ask.

It is not fraud. Period.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Maybe to be able to buy PSPs "cheaper" like the auction clearly states is of great value to this buyer because he plans on buying in bulk and making a profit. We don't know and the courts won't ask. [/quote]

Right. I'm sure the guy who bought two needed two copies of the info in case he misplaced the first one. Probably figured it was easier to just pay the seller $500 for a 2nd copy vs. going to the library and paying a few quarters to use the copier.
 
[quote name='javeryh']It is not for anyone (even the courts) to judge the value of a contract. Just because it looks like the buyer is getting ripped off to you or I doesn't mean something illegal took place. Who's to say that the buyer doesn't know exactly what he is getting? Maybe to be able to buy PSPs "cheaper" like the auction clearly states is of great value to this buyer because he plans on buying in bulk and making a profit. We don't know and the courts won't ask.

It is not fraud. Period.[/quote]

This is why we have judges and juries. Actions similar to this get prosecuted all the time. Scamming people out of investment money, contract work in construction, etc. are close to this. You don't just look at a poorly drawn up contract written within the auction description. You look at the totality of the circumstances. Plus, just because you say "paying money means you accept the terms of this contract" doesn't make it so. That's no better than a verbal agreement, which tends not to hold up too well in court. This is pretty borderline, but it could easily be interpreted to be illegal dependinng on the state and the authorities in charge. In my state of Florida, we tend to be liberal in our interpretation of fraud (so we can protect the pensions of all the elderly retirees).

Plus, even if the law may not bust you specifically for this act, it would go after you if the scale is large enough. For example, I doubt this seller would pay taxes on his potential $1500 profit from this auction. If the scale of this had been big enough, a prosecutor could very well bust him for tax fraud. I would definitely go after a scumbag like this if I were a prosecutor.

P.S. You guys are somewhat missing the level of naivete among ebayers. Not only did two of them bid $500, look at that huge list of past bidders, with only 4 retractions. I find that pretty sad. :?
 
[quote name='nikkai']I can't believe Ebay lets people sell these but they get on my back about selling an HDLoader. *sigh*[/quote]
Agreed. Ebay has cut off a couple of my auctions, and they were legit but whoever does that kind of thing is an idiot. My girl wanted a pair of those Uggz boots last year so I bought them, meanwhile she decided before she got them that she didn't want them. So when I tried to sell them on Ebay they took them off saying I couldn't sell them because I wasn't the original seller. WTF is that all about, I thought the point of Ebay was to be able to resell things.
 
[quote name='javeryh']First of all, I don't understand the relevance of your breaking and entering example. Of course that is true but breaking and entering is a completely different crime/tort than fraud with different elements to prove so I don't see how that has any bearing on whether something is fraud or not.

Second, the only definition that might matter from your google list is this one: "A knowing misrepresentation made with intent of causing another to rely upon it to the latter's detriment" because it is closest to the legal definition of fraud. The others are everyday interpretations of the word which really don't matter in this analysis. What the seller did simply does not fit this definition.

You are confusing misrepresentation with misleading someone. There was no misrepresentation here. The seller stated, in plain English, for all to read what he was selling. He didn't lie, exaggerate or misrepresent. He stated exactly what he was offering. Was it slightly misleading? Maybe - but so is every other advertisement, offer, solicitation or most anything else related to commercial transactions.

It is not for anyone (even the courts) to judge the value of a contract. Just because it looks like the buyer is getting ripped off to you or I doesn't mean something illegal took place. Who's to say that the buyer doesn't know exactly what he is getting? Maybe to be able to buy PSPs "cheaper" like the auction clearly states is of great value to this buyer because he plans on buying in bulk and making a profit. We don't know and the courts won't ask.

It is not fraud. Period.[/quote]

The B&E thing was to illustrate that just because something appears one way (they used a key and didn't break anything in order to enter) doesn't mean that that's what it is. The same thing goes with fraud. Just because you add an element that might be a normal part of a legitimate situation to something that is wholely and entirely fraud, does not make that fraud suddenly become lawful.

And there is misrepresentation. What does the title of an auction do? It tells you what is for sale. This title said that a PSP Value Pak was for sale. No one wants a $506 piece of paper telling you how to get in your car and drive to the store next year when the PSP comes to the USA in their stocking Christmas morning. This is by far not a "Great Christmas Gift". And I know that you are probably thinking that a lot of people put things in the title that don't have directly to do with the sale. We all know this. But just because one person runs a red light and gets away with it, doesn't mean the next person who tries the same thing isn't guilty when they get pulled over. That's just asinine. Same thing here. One person misrepresents with the name of the object for sale. No one jumps on him about it. So it makes it okay for Mr. PSP paper to do the same thing? Those definitions do fit with the term misrepresentation in them. Besides, there are many types of definition that the courts use. One is often called the "popular definition" and sometimes that is what is warranted in order to get to the bottom of an issue. So even if I granted you the fact that only one definition fit, the courts still have a basis for looking at this as fraud anyway if it were taken to court.

And for your last paragraph, like someone said, courts do have the right and they do actually decide if a document or verbal deal is legit, binding, fair, honest, whatever little phrase you want to use, they do it. And Wubb's statement is the best of all. Like that one guy really wanted 2 pieces of paper. Besides, if you read the posts in here you would already know that someone did email the people and when they realized what was going on, they weren't paying. So your resale idea doesn't float anyhow. Your just making things up now that "sound good" but you fail to look at the other side before spewing them out.
 
I consider myself a smart guy and even I probably wouldnt have noticed if I didnt know what to look for. This guy went balls to the wall to hide it and I assume even if it got to small claims they would nail him on something, probably implied contract.
 
[quote name='greendj27']Considering the guy is no longer a registered user, I guess eBay agreed that this was fraud.[/quote]Yeah, I noticed that too. And that's a good point you make there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top