View Single Post
  #133  
Old 06-03-2019, 07:39 AM
griffon512 griffon512 is offline
James
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy View Post
Understood. But some could argue that it's not fraud if it improved the condition of the card as some truly believe. See my example above. If I re-wire a house because it has old, faulty wiring and then sell the house, do I have to disclose that it was re-wired? Do I have to disclose other upgrades? Do you not see where I'm coming from?

I guess what I'm saying is that Moser, Brent or whoever could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card.
if it comes to it, they can argue whatever they want...a spade is still a spade...or at least it should be if shown to be

re: this: "could argue that the customer wasn't deceived, but instead they were done a favor by improving the condition of the card."

"deception" and "favor" are not mutually exclusive, nor does the law say they have to be to show fraud i would imagine. in other words, if an act is fraudulent whether it is determined to be beneficial does not make it something other than fraud...that would be my layman's assumption at least.

Last edited by griffon512; 06-03-2019 at 07:41 AM.
Reply With Quote