Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Because (1) there is no intent to deceive and (2) there is no damage to anyone to whom any implicit misrepresentation was made. Law is also flexible in situations where applying standards literally would yield to an unjustified result.
|
1 is completely untrue. There was an intent to deceive bidders, which was
the entire point of doing this to set values. Pretending that they have the items and it's a real auction is very intentionally deceiving the bidders that are being lied to. It was not an unintended oversight. This claim is obviously untrue. Back to what I said about people saying anything to justify what they want - this is blatantly false and it is obvious that it is false.
Again, I have made no comment on 2 nor does this have anything to do with the definition. The bidders did not pay and thus do not have provable damages. This may have something to do with why I am not arguing whether or not they should be taken to civil court for fraud.