Happy Festivus! Airing of Grievances 2024 Edition

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

And you think it is wrong for an individual, but perfectly alright for a corporation, and you cannot understand why some people would not draw different lines for different people/groups but have ethic based on the act, not the thing committing said act?

And you think it is perfectly honest to run fake auctions for items one doesn't have, but only if that is a corporation doing it (otherwise, if it was honest independent of the thing doing it, then there is no reason an individual wouldn't or shouldn't do the same thing)?

Even if one supports it, running auctions for things one does not have and cannot possibly deliver on is "dishonest". I think we all, at some level, must be cognizant of that.

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me it would be dishonest if it was part of a scheme to defraud, by getting someone to pay for the item and then not delivering the card. That would apply equally to an individual and a company. The facts here are unique -- there was no such intent nor do you claim there was. The reasons for continuing the auction had nothing at all to do with fraud. IMO you could question whether they made the right judgment call under all the circumstances, but I don't buy into the characterizations of fake, dishonest, etc.

This is correct. There is a big difference from selling something you don't have and have no intention to deliver, then taking money for it to deprive the buyer of their funds, and the situation here where they let an auction run with either a good faith belief you will be able to deliver the goods in the near future, or no intent to ever receive money from a buyer. If you never deprive the potential buyer of their money/property, there can be no fraud. Fraud requires an intent to defraud, and theft requires an intent to permanently deprive an owner of their property. Neither is relevant to Memory Lane in this case.