Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?
So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.
|
I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.
Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.
Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.
I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.