New email from craig, watch out

[WizardStan]

I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is precisely in this case

Six yearsThe very original day-one purchasers have until October 2014 to file a formal complaint for breach of contract. Those that bought throughout the following years have even longer.

And yes, it would be completely illegal to do that,

that would likely still be a misdemeanor

Agreement to purchase is a contract. It's not against the law to break a contract. It is not illegal to agree to buy something, barter in lieu of payment, and then renege if the barter doesn't go your way. You may be held accountable in other ways for breaking the contract, such as having to pay the original price plus some penalty, and failure to pay those penalties could lead to actual legal trouble, but the act of breaking a contract in and of itself cannot be illegal, it would give an incredibly unbalanced amount of power to corporations if that were the case.

 

[ramboky]

The problem here is, despite the law being on the side of those who have been screwed and despite there being a simple and free method for those who reside in the UK to have this settled in court, none are willing to do anything. Craig gets away with this sort of behavior because people let him. Why wouldn't he sell refurbished units which he knows should go to old orders when he knows the worst anyone will do is make a pissy comment on a forum?

 

[hedwards]

I'm not sure what the statute of limitations is precisely in this case

Six years
The very original day-one purchasers have until October 2014 to file a formal complaint for breach of contract. Those that bought throughout the following years have even longer.

And yes, it would be completely illegal to do that,

that would likely still be a misdemeanor

Agreement to purchase is a contract. It's not against the law to break a contract. It is not illegal to agree to buy something, barter in lieu of payment, and then renege if the barter doesn't go your way. You may be held accountable in other ways for breaking the contract, such as having to pay the original price plus some penalty, and failure to pay those penalties could lead to actual legal trouble, but the act of breaking a contract in and of itself cannot be illegal, it would give an incredibly unbalanced amount of power to corporations if that were the case.

Sigh, you people are missing the point. I misunderstood what his original point was, but he's still recommending actions that are illegal around here. Even under the most rosy of interpretations you're still looking at about a half dozen civil infrations which could and would be used in his defense if things get to court.

I see that the fact that eBay's policies are so horribly broken in favor of the people buying products isn't a problem? That's sort of the point, when you allow people to renegotiate the terms of the contract after the fact. Deprive the seller of selling to somebody that's actually going to pay for it, it's harmful to the economy as well. There's a reason why tortious interference isn't legally permissible.

As I've said before the situation sucks for everybody as well, but advocating for fraud isn't going to help anybody out. Regardless of whether or not it rises to the level of a felony, it's still something that can and will show up in the public record and potentially be shown to potential employers. All it's going to do is make a relatively simple case much more complex and greatly increase the cost of litigating it if it comes to that.

 

[vcoleiro1]

^ You do realize someone saying the following action would be  Uncivil is completely different to a recommendation right?, In fact its close to the exact opposite

Please refrain from miss-representing what I said.  

 

[WizardStan]

I see that the fact that eBay's policies are so horribly broken in favor of the people buying products isn't a problem? That's sort of the point, when you allow people to renegotiate the terms of the contract after the fact. Deprive the seller of selling to somebody that's actually going to pay for it, it's harmful to the economy as well.

How does that translate to it being illegal?

advocating for fraud isn't going to help anybody out

Who is advocating fraud? The suggestion is to make the purchase and then tell Craig that in lieu of payment he can simply cancel without refund the order that he already has on the book. This is not fraud, it's not even against eBay's policies. They don't particularly care how payment is managed (other than they prefer you use their services so they get more money), simply that the exchange is equitable to the price. If we want to meet in person and exchange cash, that is fine. If I bought something for $100 and then emailed the guy and said "I'm actually a farmer, would you take $100 worth of veggies instead of cash?" that is their prerogative to accept or reject. There are no laws being broken here, civil, federal, or international.

 

[moxie]

It is a quite common misconception, that: To confuse what is right with what is law. "He did something that is not right! Why don't you sue him?" - Well, there are many varieties of what is not right that are not covered by law.

 

[ramboky]

Sigh, you people are missing the point. I misunderstood what his original point was, but he's still recommending actions that are illegal around here. Even under the most rosy of interpretations you're still looking at about a half dozen civil infrations which could and would be used in his defense if things get to court.

I see that the fact that eBay's policies are so horribly broken in favor of the people buying products isn't a problem? That's sort of the point, when you allow people to renegotiate the terms of the contract after the fact. Deprive the seller of selling to somebody that's actually going to pay for it, it's harmful to the economy as well. There's a reason why tortious interference isn't legally permissible.

As I've said before the situation sucks for everybody as well, but advocating for fraud isn't going to help anybody out. Regardless of whether or not it rises to the level of a felony, it's still something that can and will show up in the public record and potentially be shown to potential employers. All it's going to do is make a relatively simple case much more complex and greatly increase the cost of litigating it if it comes to that.

I'm afraid it's you who's missing the point. There is nothing anyone has suggested here that's illegal or falls under the category of fraud or tortious interference. And I think you'd be hard pressed to incur one, let alone "a half dozen civil infrations" from trying to renegotiate an ebay transaction, post sale. You really need to either prefix all your posts with IANAL or stop presenting legal advice like you know what you're talking about, because you clearly don't. 

WizardStan put it very succinctly: "the act of breaking a contract in and of itself cannot be illegal, it would give an incredibly unbalanced amount of power to corporations if that were the case."