Bought a fake! Major dilemma!

patriciaellen

On the whole we get terrible service in this country because we put up with it. The OP has been conned and wants to do something about it. Good for her.

barvid

spinning_hamster_wheel wrote: »

I have no objection to sites such as this; they offer a welcome forum for people to exchange practical (and free) advice in relation to problems which are not necessarily worth consulting a solicitor about (especially when fees are a minimum of £120 per hour excluding VAT, even more when any form of court action is contemplated). However, it does get to a point where some posts are wrong to the extent that others may come away with a mistaken impression. There are too many posts on here to reply to them (and pull anyone up) although I do take particular exception to one nameless individual (ie barvid) whose contribution runs as follows:

"Incidentally, the spoken/written distinction for slander/libel is also not entirely accurate - it's more of a temporary/permanent thing. Both are defamation, though." - slander is spoken and libel is written for those of us in England. Yes, it is a distinction, but an important one. Look at an extreme example to put it in perspective 'wee jimmy ned steals a car and the police nab him - he is reported to the fiscal - who not surprisingly decides this is indeed a crime - but the fiscal decides to charge him with rape - the sheriff and all other solicitors present will have a good guffaw about it' - just as they would if the incorrect disctinction re slander/libel were to be put forward in the English High Court. As to the distinction being not entirely accurate - I fancy you will find it is.

"I don't see how you could sue the seller - you'd have your money back so you would be back at square one, with no loss. That's the only thing you could sue for. You've lost nothing, provided you receive a refund, so what loss are you suing for?" This is trite contract law - the seller is purporting to have a genuine bag/camera/watch/antique bag of horse manure once owned by Leonardo da Vinci etc; ie they are putting forth a position to help realise a better sale price. Quite apart from this being a criminal offence, which it is, as the seller was quite content to let my wife buy a supposedly genuine bag, in the hope that she would not realise it was a fake, with the fallback position of an immediate refund in case it all went wrong, it is a plain and simple breach of contract. The buyer is entitled to believe without question that the seller does indeed have the particular (genuine) item. Once a sale price is agreed, the offer is accepted and you have a genuine living breathing contract. With remedies for non performance. What is the loss sued for you ask? Very simple - in this case a genuine mulberry bag, or the cost of obtaining one. Remedy in practical terms? If the seller does not send a genuine mulberry, even if it ends up costing them plenty to obtain one, in Scotland at least you have the option of raising an action for specific implement (ie the court will compel the errant seller to obtain the bag), or the buyer can purchase a mulberry at their own cost and sue for the price paid, assuming the buyer minimises their losses. Personally, I wouldnt be doing this as there is always the risk the buyer cannot be located. Personally, I would offer the seller the chance to remedy the situation before going to the police and if they will not play ball - guess who is ending up with a criminal record. At the end of the day, my wife's position is protected. Unless the law on contract was re-written in the last few minutes, I am pretty sure that is bang on the nail. or do you have an up to date law basics book which contradicts me here? Thought not.

Why pull up Barvid in particular? Well, I am of the opinion that when someone who is plainly not a solicitor starts giving more than an opinion in respect of complex legal matters, they rather open themselves to being corrected. Especially when their opinion/advice may be relied on by others.

#

I may not be a solicitor, but I **AM** a lawyer. Furthermore, I think you'll find if you bother to check that the legal definition of libel and slander are NOT "written" and "spoken".

Best proof I can find off-hand is here - http://hosting.lawyerlocator.co.uk/hp/baehrs/defamation.html

Something which is spoken in a TV or radio broadcast is defined as libel because it is permanent. Therefore spoken defamation is NOT always slander.

Look before you leap next time, and check your facts.

barvid

Furthermore, spinning hamster wheel, if you're going to come on this site looking for advice, can I suggest that when someone actually gives you some advice - or even just an opinion - then you refrain from writing insulting posts back.

If you're such an expert on contract and defamation law, why are you asking everyone else's opinion on here?! I freely admit I don't know much about Scottish law, but I do think you'll be wasting your time if you sue.

hjb123

i too have been following this thread with interest. I was also wondering how mulberry tell you its a fake - how do they inspect it? Do you send photos or something?

judyjetson

spinning_hamster_wheel wrote: »

its the emmy purse not the emmy bag. the emmy purse was in the last sale at a reduced price.

Thought it might have been that as soon as I'd posted - or that you might have missed a number out! I've a bit of a weakness for Mulberrys myself, but have been lucky and got all mine in the sales. Good luck - hope you get it sorted.

spinning_hamster_wheel

hjb123 wrote: »

i too have been following this thread with interest. I was also wondering how mulberry tell you its a fake - how do they inspect it? Do you send photos or something?

Well I could tell its a fake just by looking at it. The leather was the wrong shade and of inferior quality., the bag it came in was the wrong colour, the little mulberry "tree" printed on the bag was the wrong shape and printed in the wrong way. The hardware on the bag was hollow instead of heavy and solid brass. Mulberry aren't supposed to divulge to customers who come in asking if their bag is genuine or fake, whether it is or not. They're supposed to send it to their Head Office in Somerset but my friend works for Mulberry so she just confirmed what I already knew to be true.

shelly

patriciaellen wrote: »

Has she provided you with an address to return the handbag to? If so, may I suggest that you go to www.192.com and use search the electoral register to see who actually lives at that address. It's a useful way to see if your seller has provided you with a fake name or not.

Nothing to do with the thread but for info only. Don't believe 192.com at all. I just searched for myself and apparently I don't exist in my married name, only my maiden name. I've been married for nearly 7 years :rolleyes: So say for arguments sake I was the seller and gave you my name and address, I don't exist according to that site......but I do!!!!

Take what 192.com says with a pinch of salt.

spinning_hamster_wheel

Moderator: apologies if this appears to be venturing off topic; it will be my last post in this respect.

"I may not be a solicitor, but I **AM** a lawyer. Furthermore, I think you'll find if you bother to check that the legal definition of libel and slander are NOT "written" and "spoken". Firstly, you would be grammatically correct to say 'is' instead of 'are', unless you make definition plural. I am aware of the distinction between libel and slander and you are to be applauded for undertaking research to back up your assertion (which any solicitor would do) although I do feel you have maybe taken offence where it was not intended. However, do you really feel you have to go to such lengths to assert your point of view? You come across like that outcast boy at the back of the school class who has to go hell for leather to prove his point when the teacher has moved on to the next point. Thank you for the link to the particular legal firm's website, it proved a fount of knowledge(he said without a hint of sarcasm). If you really wish to hammer home your point of view, give me a particular case as authority, along with the name of judge venturing the opinion and if the opinion is obiter: not a brief resume from a website. As always, before I venture an opinion, the facts have been checked.

If you are not a solicitor, what category of legally trained person do you fit within? Barrister? Para-legal? Licensed conveyancer? Legal executive? I am a solicitor incidentally. In Scotland we do not really use the term lawyer (only lay persons would do so, usually on the understanding it means solicitor), which is why I ask.


"Therefore spoken defamation is NOT always slander." I would contend it probably still is; the only difference is it may additionally be libel if held in a permanent medium. I infer from the way you frame your sentences you are not used to constructing pleadings - you leave too many holes in your argument for me to pick up on at a glance. Incidentally Barvid, the link you gave ie http://hosting.lawyerlocator.co.uk/hp/baehrs/defamation.html in fact backs up my argument and does nothing to further yours(!) I suppose you were off on the day they taught relevancy and specification at law school. Hope all of this helps you out a bit.

Time2Go_25

Please can this be closed off now

ckerrd

pdel61 wrote: »

Please can this be closed off now

Not yet - I want to know what happens.

I want the good guys to win.
(That's you S_P_W)