Picasso Dreams Shattered

SmileBeHappy

well luke seems to have hotmail- someone pay his email address a friendly call

frivolous_fay

Ah.

Their terms are awfully similar. Perhaps they're related, or scammer buddies

Mr_Squiddy

frivolous_fay wrote:

Ah.

Their terms are awfully similar. Perhaps they're related, or scammer buddies

Undoubtedly.

Bamber19

frivolous_fay wrote:

Ah.

Their terms are awfully similar. Perhaps they're related, or scammer buddies

yep they appear to be buddies, listed as friends of eahc other and at the same college, not to mention both having a penchant for a scam or two

SmileBeHappy

Bamber19 wrote:

yep they appear to be buddies, listed as friends of eahc other and at the same college, not to mention both having a penchant for a scam or two

technically their not scamming by what they sell, yes its sneaky, but they dnt care, their 17 and want cash, if i had less morals id do it, but im a 17yr old WITH a few :rolleyes:

I can see their point, they do (even if very badly) point out its a picture, or a dummy etc but people still bid. The fact their underage is a banning matter

Bamber19

laura_marshall89 wrote:

technically their not scamming by what they sell

I think that's what they believe aswell. They are attempting to get funds by deception.

SmileBeHappy

Bamber19 wrote:

I think that's what they believe aswell. They are attempting to get funds by deception.

well i think their nasty people but if they do write its a dummy, or its a copy etc, then their doing all they legally need to

Bamber19

no they're not, contractually if the terms are not set out clear and visibly, or one party is unaware of certain terms then there is no consensus in idem and hence no contract, or at the very least a voidable contract. As a criminal matter they are clearly, and there's no if but or maybe a bout it, attempting to trick the buyer or deceive them.

SmileBeHappy

Bamber19 wrote:

no they're not, contractually if the terms are not set out clear and visibly, or one party is unaware of certain terms then there is no consensus in idem and hence no contract, or at the very least a voidable contract. As a criminal matter they are clearly, and there's no if but or maybe a bout it, attempting to trick the buyer or deceive them.

if the buyer is unaware of the terms, they shouldn't bid, if they can't read a whole auction then thats probably an issue

as it is, ebay don't seem to care, and thats all the so called scamers have to worry about

Bamber19

it's not a case of not being able to read a whole auction, without highlighting the page I, and the majority of people would have no chance of knowing about this extra little term they decided to throw in. It's also not a case of not knowing what they are bidding on, it's a case of being misled to believe they are bidding on something they are not, a full page of technical specifications followed by a barely visible tiny statement which renders all of that insignificant is insufficient.
It's all the scammers (imho there's no "so called" about it) have to worry about until one of two things happens, either someone gets the police involved or they sell a photo of an ipod to the wrong person who only lives 20 minutes away and decides it's worth his while to go and pay them a visit.
I can't believe you think they are doing all that is required of them. Would you think it fair if i had an ebay listing titled "brand new Lamborghini Murcielago" the listing then goes on to describe all the great things about the supercar and that it's value is £150,000 but underneath all this in(and let's take it a slight step further than these guys) in white type i write "actually what you are bidding on is a brown paper bag"