[img]http://photos-081.facebook.com/n6/081/n15913038_30266081_3342.jpg[/img]
[img]http://photos-081.facebook.com/n6/081/n15913038_30266081_3342.jpg[/img]
stallownt - 6G Celicas Forums
[img]http://photos-081.facebook.com/n6/081/n15913038_30266081_3342.jpg[/img]
2 cellphone photos on ebay: $457.00
Gas to get to court: $36.50
Makeup and hairspray: $25
Getting PWND on national televison for the tune of $5,0000: PRICELESS
Somethings money cant buy, for everything else, theres ebay scammers getting owned!
Gas to get to court: $36.50
Makeup and hairspray: $25
Getting PWND on national televison for the tune of $5,0000: PRICELESS
Somethings money cant buy, for everything else, theres ebay scammers getting owned!
KawiLove
1995 Convertible Celica2003 Nissan Murano SE
She got what she deserved. I personally can't stand
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.
JDM guy made me do it.
haha judge judy is amazing.
question though, why $5,000?
question though, why $5,000?
YoungSurvival.Org-Celica traded for.. 350z.. traded for Mazda5.. soccer mom!
>
I agree with you Randy, I would smack the crap out of JJ if she ever talked to me like that. I got brains, right here
then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware
QUOTE(97lestyousay @ Feb 24, 2007 - 1:36 AM) [snapback]529849[/snapback]
>
She got what she deserved. I personally can't stand
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.
She got what she deserved. I personally can't stand
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.
I agree with you Randy, I would smack the crap out of JJ if she ever talked to me like that. I got brains, right here
then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware
my st205 swapandour Beams swap
Dustin, JJ would own you and everyone else lol. That lady got what she deserved
oh boy here we go very funny though
you know why they put sheep at the edge of a cliff.... that way they push back!(2:27:32 AM) edit: please f*cking work, f*ck, sh*t, piss(2:28:08 AM) edit: that did the trick
>
You probably just mean that people need to be careful which is certainly true. However, "buyer beware" or "caveat emptor" comes from the common law indicating that so long as the seller does not misrepresent something, the buyer has no legal rememdy. That is not true today as most (if not all) states have statutes which prohibit deceptive business practices. These statutes pre-empt the common law. It does not matter that the ad says the auction is for a photo. It is deceptive in that the intent was to get people's money because potential buyers might THINK it was a real phone. The intent of the advertiser is what is important. Although I think JJ is a prima dona of the worst sort, she got this one right.
As for the question above regarding the $5000 judgement, I presume that is the maximum allowed in small claims court in the applicable state. The plaintiff would have been entitled to more than the value spent due to the defamation issue as the seller had falsly reported feedback.
QUOTE(Batman722 @ Feb 24, 2007 - 12:40 AM) [snapback]529852[/snapback]
>
then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware
then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware
You probably just mean that people need to be careful which is certainly true. However, "buyer beware" or "caveat emptor" comes from the common law indicating that so long as the seller does not misrepresent something, the buyer has no legal rememdy. That is not true today as most (if not all) states have statutes which prohibit deceptive business practices. These statutes pre-empt the common law. It does not matter that the ad says the auction is for a photo. It is deceptive in that the intent was to get people's money because potential buyers might THINK it was a real phone. The intent of the advertiser is what is important. Although I think JJ is a prima dona of the worst sort, she got this one right.
As for the question above regarding the $5000 judgement, I presume that is the maximum allowed in small claims court in the applicable state. The plaintiff would have been entitled to more than the value spent due to the defamation issue as the seller had falsly reported feedback.
QUOTE(lagos @ Jul 10, 2006 - 1:55 PM) [snapback]454118[/snapback]i know your trying to do the right thing for your motor, but this is one of those times where you should just trust the guys who have had their swaps for a while and have done a ton of research into this.
Jays right. Its the maximum allowed in small claims. She did this maximum to basically send a message to all scam artists that this is intolerable.
JJ lives around here, not sure but I think the next town over.
JJ lives around here, not sure but I think the next town over.
MyFlickrMyeBay_Perpetual Aperture_
I laughed... a lot... although JJ was kinda a bia