Ethics discussion for purchases never delivered

[govannon]

08deathwishbronson.jpg

[MagickalMemories]

@ EVIL INC

WALLOFTEXTSAYWHAT?

@ all

Fraud:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud

From the LEGAL definition:

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: fraud
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin fraud- fraus
1 a : any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage; specifically : a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby b : the affirmative defense of having acted in response to a fraud
2 : the crime or tort of committing fraud fraud> —see also MISREPRESENTATION
NOTE: A tort action based on fraud is also referred to as an action of deceit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actual fraud
: fraud committed with the actual intent to deceive and thereby injure another called also fraud in fact —compare CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
collateral fraud
: EXTRINSIC FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
constructive fraud
: conduct that is considered fraud under the law despite the absence of an intent to deceive because it has the same consequences as an actual fraud would have and it is against public interests (as because of the violation of a public or private trust or confidence, the breach of a fiduciary duty, or the use of undue influence) called also legal fraud —compare ACTUAL FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
equitable fraud
: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD in this entry —used esp. in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
extrinsic fraud
: fraud (as that involved in making a false offer of compromise) that induces one not to present a case in court or deprives one of the opportunity to be heard; also : fraud that is not involved in the actual issues presented to a court and that prevents a full and fair hearing called also collateral fraud —compare INTRINSIC FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fraud in fact
: ACTUAL FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fraud in law
: fraud that is presumed to have occurred in light of the circumstances irrespective of intent to deceive
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fraud in the factum
: fraud in which the deception causes the other party to misunderstand the nature of the transaction in which he or she is engaging esp. with regard to the contents of an instrument (as a contract or promissory note) called also fraud in the execution —compare FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fraud in the inducement
: fraud in which the deception leads the other party to engage in a transaction the nature of which he or she understands —compare FRAUD IN THE FACTUM in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fraud on the court
: fraud involving conduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process (as by improperly influencing a judge, jury, or other court personnel); also : EXTRINSIC FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
intrinsic fraud
: fraud (as by the use of false or forged documents, false claims, or perjured testimony) that deceives the trier of fact and results in a judgment in favor of the party perpetrating the fraud —compare EXTRINSIC FRAUD in this entry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
legal fraud
1 : CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD in this entry
2 : ACTUAL FRAUD in this entry —used esp. in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mail fraud
: fraud committed by use of the postal service esp. as described in title 18 section 1341 of the U.S. Code
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wire fraud
: fraud committed by using a means of electronic communication (as a telephone) —see also Wire Fraud Act in the IMPORTANT LAWS section

Misrepresentation:

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: mis·rep·re·sent
Pronunciation: mis-"re-pri-'zent
Function: transitive verb
: to make a misrepresentation about intransitive verb : to make a misrepresentation —mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tive /-"re-pri-'zen-t&-tiv/ adjective —mis·rep·re·sen·ter noun

Main Entry: mis·rep·re·sen·ta·tion
Pronunciation: mis-"re-pri-"zen-'tA-sh&n, -z&n-
Function: noun
: an intentionally or sometimes negligently false representation made verbally, by conduct, or sometimes by nondisclosure or concealment and often for the purpose of deceiving, defrauding, or causing another to rely on it detrimentally; also : an act or instance of making such a representation
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

With the infinite legal and divine powers vested in me by Bartertown*, I state that they meet the legal qualifications for fraud.

Eric

*Which is none, but it's funnier than saying "I read it and it clearly states..."

[Ironhide]

Thus the lesson continued...

[EVIL INC]

Admin edit - Double post. [...]

@ Ironhide, I will adress your post now...
1. yes, people paiid for product
2. in some cases product was not delivered (not all cases as is claimed)
3. people make a single phone call or e-mail with no follow up or attempts to work their way to supervisors when answer they want is not given.
4. Issue goes on for a few years
4.5 rather then file formal complaints or follow up with company, people curse amongst themselves until they develop a lynch mob
5. lynch mob tries to put company out of business through boycott rather then going about legal channels
6. EVIL INC states his opinion that legal channels should be tried first.
7. s.o.r.r.o.w. disagrees with EVIL INC and tells him that he does not have a right to his own opinion as to what methods to try to rectify the situation should be tried first.
8. EVIL INC is sent to the back of the room because he had the temerity to voice a well thought out and knowledgable opinion in a respectful and dignified manner.

By the way, I LOVE that picture Locust. Would make a great blacklight wall poster.

@ magical memories, thank you for providing the definitions. They clearly support my case in that the accusations against the company of knowingly and purposely defrauding all of their customers are incorrect. Thank you for providing them.

[MagickalMemories]

Okay, EI... This has gone on QUITE long enough.
I'm officially annoyed.
...and, just to be clear, so that there's no redirection... I'm annoyed at YOU.

Clearly, your reading comprehension is failing you. Either that, of you're willfully ignoring certain FACTS.

My notes are in RED in the following quote.

@ Ironhide, I will adress your post now...
1. yes, people paiid for product
2. in some cases product was not delivered (not all cases as is claimed) Show me where, AS AN ENTIRE GROUP, it is claimed that it is that way in ALL cases, or stop claiming that they're stating it as a fact.
3. people make a single phone call or e-mail with no follow up or attempts to work their way to supervisors when answer they want is not given.
4. Issue goes on for a few years
4.5 rather then file formal complaints or follow up with company, people curse amongst themselves until they develop a lynch mob
5. lynch mob tries to put company out of business through boycott rather then going about legal channels A boycot IS legal. It is a tool used by consumers to influence the company. it's legitimate and NOT a "lynch mob" tactic.
6. EVIL INC states his opinion that legal channels should be tried first.
7. s.o.r.r.o.w. disagrees with EVIL INC and tells him that he does not have a right to his own opinion as to what methods to try to rectify the situation should be tried first. Where did he state that you are not allowed to have an opinion?
8. EVIL INC is sent to the back of the room because he had the temerity to voice a well thought out and knowledgable opinion in a respectful and dignified manner. If you think you've been respectful the whole time, you're a bit off center in your definition.

By the way, I LOVE that picture Locust. Would make a great blacklight wall poster.

@ magical memories, thank you for providing the definitions. They clearly support my case in that the accusations against the company of knowingly and purposely defrauding all of their customers are incorrect. Thank you for providing them.
You did not read them, obviously, as they show that the company has, indeed, engaged in FRAUD.

images/smilies/rulez.gif
This is an official ADMINISTRATIVE warning. Cease the use (or attempted use) of that .gif immediately. You are not allowed to use it, as you are not staff. You do not get to dictate rules (rulez) or policy. Furthermore, do not attempt to replace it with anything that looks as if it might be used in place of that gif.

[fitterpete]

He's trolling guys.I think I actually figured it out a couple hours ago.It's got to be a act.Just let it go.
We had a guy on TMP a while ago that did the same thing.When he got ignored he went away.Evil you didn't ever go by the name supergroover on TMP did you?

[govannon]

@ magical memories, thank you for providing the definitions. They clearly support my case in that the accusations against the company of knowingly and purposely defrauding all of their customers are incorrect. Thank you for providing them.

I don't remember seeing the claim that every customer was ripped off. The OP said some have been and was asking if anybody else was.
They knowingly and purposely kept the money without shipping the product even after being contacted by the customer...that is fraud!

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

5. lynch mob tries to put company out of business through boycott rather then going about legal channels

A Boycott is a legal channel. If you mean to say that the complainants are not pursuing litigation, you need to be more specific. Of course, you should ensure that such a statement is factually correct.

7. s.o.r.r.o.w. disagrees with EVIL INC and tells him that he does not have a right to his own opinion as to what methods to try to rectify the situation should be tried first.

Evidence? I didn't tell you that you have no right. I satirized you a bit and suggested that such a defense is silly and misplaced, but not that you had no right to make it. It's tedious to read your defenses and they are often lacking in factual accuracy or relevance to the schwerpunkt, but clearly as an emancipated adult you have a right to such opinions.

8. EVIL INC is sent to the back of the room because he had the temerity to voice a well thought out and knowledgable opinion in a respectful and dignified manner.

See? There's that factual inaccuracy again.

@ magical memories, thank you for providing the definitions. They clearly support my case in that the accusations against the company of knowingly and purposely defrauding all of their customers are incorrect. Thank you for providing them.

I don't think you read them closely enough:

mail fraud
: fraud committed by use of the postal service esp. as described in title 18 section 1341 of the U.S. Code

If these complainants have paid money and not received their items, then BTD has committed mail fraud, per Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1831 of the U.S. Code. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/us ... -000-.html

Making an obfuscating argument that the complainants are claiming that BTD is defrauding ALL of their customers is, frankly, asinine.

[EVIL INC]

-Yes a boycott is legal. You need to make sure your statements are factually correct in these situation, in my opinion. It is also my opinion that the regular channels such as the BBB and government regulated agencies are used before the more extreme unregulated ones. You are free to disagree just I should, in my opinion, have the same right but evidently I do not here.
-I thank you, my opinions are indeed based in evidence and experience as well as facts.
- Yes, again based on factual accuracy.
- Perhaps, you should read them more closely because they support my opinions exactly.
- please refrain from name calling. in my opinion that should be beneath you. The O.P. and many of the ones he was referring to did claim that they were knowingly defrauding all of their customers. The key word is knowingly. My issue is with the accusation that the company went into business with the intent to knowingly and purposely rip people off. In my opinion, that particular accusation cant be proven without reading their minds. Even if their minds were read, I personally think, you would find that was not the intention but that they simply got in over their heads and screwed up. There is a difference to me.

[govannon]

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

[EVIL INC]

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

Thank you. Hopefully, that site will get some use here.

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

I have no idea what most of your points are referring to, but I can isolate this one:

- Perhaps, you should read them more closely because they support my opinions exactly.

Either you are referring to:

A) The threads, in which apparently someone accuses BTD of defrauding all of their customers; or

B) Title 18 Section 1631, in which you think BTD's actions do not qualify as fraud.

Please, using clear quotations and references, demonstrate how it is that either A or B supports your opinions exactly.

Hint: Use square brackets around the word quote to begin a quotation, and squar brackets around /quote to end it. That'll help a lot.

[porkuslime]

Evil.. did you notice that MM posted some comments in red above? Take them to heart.

-Porkuslime

[s_o_r_r_o_w]

http://www.literacy.uconn.edu/compre.htm

Thank you. Hopefully, that site will get some use here.

I don't want to speak for govannon, but I think he's suggesting that YOU, EVIL INC, could benefit from it.

[EVIL INC]

Indeed I have. My only issues are...
1. I feel that I should have the right to an opinion on the matter
2. I feel that I should have the right to voice my opinions in a respectfull and dignified manner without having people troll at, insult, call me names. I dont do it to others and hope for the same treatment in return.

My opinions disagree with some of the other members on mental intents of the company and what actions should be taken. I feel that such hatred and hostility towards me just because I disagree on opinions is a little unwarranted in my opinion. If the entire world only thought one way, only looked at any situation one way ect, I feel that we as a human race would be little more then clones of one another and that the world would be rather boring. Just because my opinion on this matter disagrees with a few admins and whatever the green names are should not mean I should not have the right to express them. We should , in my opinion, ALL be able to recognize that we are different as human beings with different views and opinions.
We all agree on the facts, we only disagree on opinions. Why should I not have the right to mine?