Tiger said:
You said it yourself, the practice of selling "off coupons, vouchers and email info on how to get "cheap" products" is "very common".
Right, I did say that. And if that is why you used the example of the "56 mph" then that is where you erred. The auctions for coupons, email info, etc that I mentioned are LEGAL, and aren't against eBay rules. That's why they are common, and such auctions often purposefully showcase the product, though it's not the product itself that the buyer gets. That's why I mentioned it to show that there is a very well established precedent for auction listings like this were the buyer doesn't actually get the product showcased, but instead gets some other representation or information on that product. Heck, I have auctioned off such coupons, and had many happy buyers. I usually sell them for 99¢ or so. But it's not uncommon with such listings for some nimrod asks a question like: "Do I really get a Microsoft Zune for $.99???", even though I have clearly stated they are getting an e-coupon for $25 off.
Tiger also said:
And since you always seem to be so keen on word definitions and holding people strictly too them, you should know that "illegal" can mean something that goes against the LAW, or RULES. eBay is quite clear in what is, and isn't allowed. Having and conducting an auction with the implicit intent to deceive is not allowed. And there very well maybe be illegal activity, illegal against the law, going on, especially considering state lines were crossed.
Yup, Tiger, you are so right there is a big difference between laws and rules.
What she did probably was against eBay's rules, assuming eBay has rules against deceptive and misleading auction listings. But technically, it would be almost impossible, IMHO, to show that what she did was against the law. There are many things that are against eBay's rules...that doesn't make them illegal in a court of law.
This should have never made it to any court. This should have been handled by eBay and it's dispute resolution as big a joke as it is.
The bottom-line here is that for this to have been an illegal activity one would have to prove the intent to defraud the buyer. Intent is a very, very hard thing to prove. I don't think Judge Judy proved it at all. I don't even think she understood or even read the entire auction listing. I think she just got ticked off and went out on a rant. It's good TV but piss-poor judging.
My issue was with Judge Judy threatening with the sicking the IRS on the husband's drywalling business and child protective services...that's just out of line.
But then again, Judge Judy has always played loose with the law. She listens to unsubstantiated hearsay and claims she believes it. That's not good judging either...good TV, but not good law. That's why there is no appeal in her court.
P.S. I am not apologize for what the seller did, or condoning it in any way, I just think that in so many ways, Judge Judy didn't review the evidence, wasn't impartial, jumped to conclusions, as was abusive to the seller. Did the seller deserve to lose, yes.
TJR
