skinsfan07 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 You guys HAVE to watch this........unreal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJDK6ctRjqw&feature=related I'm glad she gets what she deserves in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boysetsfire Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. QFFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 That video was funny as hell. She sold two picture of cell phones for 400 bucks ahahahahahah. The only thing that the ebay scammer said which is kind of true is she stated in the add that its for pictures of the phones, I mean I know thats ****ed up to do something like that but she did state its for pictures only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. Fa willz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Touchdown Redskins Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I don't think she got pwned...the scammer's just an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The only thing that the ebay scammer said which is kind of true is she stated in the add that its for pictures of the phones, I mean I know thats ****ed up to do something like that but she did state its for pictures only. That would just about never hold up in a court of law. No one would sit and buy ordinary pictures of cell phones (it's not like it's stylized art work or something) for that amount of money. It also violates EBay's rules, I'm pretty sure becase you have to make it clear and not use anything misleading in your ad, and that includes the title. So, it may be true but many ads are full of text and I barely read all the text because the main title and most of the secondary stuff should indicate truthfully and accurately what the item is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ball Coach Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. I'm not too picky, I'd crush all three of them. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BALLz Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The scammer was pretty dumb for agreeing to come on the show. And I honestly do feel sorry for the kids. That are destined to fail just like their mom. Just curious, was her inaccuarate discription of what the items weighed what did her in or could they have gotten her anyway for intenionally misleading a bidder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 The scammer was pretty dumb for agreeing to come on the show. And I honestly do feel sorry for the kids. That are destined to fail just like their mom. Just curious, was her inaccuarate discription of what the items weighed what did her in or could they have gotten her anyway for intenionally misleading a bidder? Trust me, you'd get in trouble for trying to auction off two very ordinary (thus not an artistic representation) photos of cell phones. If you are auctioning photos, you'd have to put "Selling TWO PHOTOS" or something like that and then the people would be responsible for it. But any misleading item can get you in hot water. Misleading does not mean OUTRIGHT deception/fraud. It merely means that your ad is meant to give the person a particular impression about what you're selling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. Hellz yea!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPortJGibbs89 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 That would just about never hold up in a court of law. No one would sit and buy ordinary pictures of cell phones (it's not like it's stylized art work or something) for that amount of money. It also violates EBay's rules, I'm pretty sure becase you have to make it clear and not use anything misleading in your ad, and that includes the title. So, it may be true but many ads are full of text and I barely read all the text because the main title and most of the secondary stuff should indicate truthfully and accurately what the item is... Yea I see what your saying, I had only watched half the video when I posted my comment, I finished the video and another thing is there is no way in hell two photo papers weigh 4 oz she was also lying about the weight as well. Some people in this world are just ****ing retarded. Thanks for the video OP I always love a great laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 That video was funny as hell. She sold two picture of cell phones for 400 bucks ahahahahahah. The only thing that the ebay scammer said which is kind of true is she stated in the add that its for pictures of the phones, I mean I know thats ****ed up to do something like that but she did state its for pictures only. No, Judge Judy said that the description DID NOT have any notifitication of it just bing for pics. It was FOR THE PHONES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 shoot....the daughter is gorgeous. and her mother isnt to bad either. but that was awesome. tries to scam someone out of $460 and ends up having to pay $5000. then has the law looking into her and soon to be IRS and child protective services. and 'humiliating herself in front of 10 million people'. what a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 I'd crush the daughter. Mama ain't too bad either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 What's troubling is seeing people in the comments for that video actually defending the thief. Here's the other thing: Common sense tells you no one would buy photos of phones when they can make them themselves with pretty rudimentary technology. I also have no doubt the husband and wife scumbag team (B)ilkins thought they were 'legally' protected by putting in there that it was photos only. Also, many people accurately say, "buying what you see in this picture" to indicate they do not have all the literature or box that came with an item originally. To usurp that statement to fool people into 'buying' photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 right, if the seller reasonably made the buyer believe that they were purchasing phones, then phones should be given. Even though each party meant something different, the selling party acted that would make any reasonable person believe they were buying a phone. No one is dumb enough to pay $450 for a piece of paper, and if she tries to appeal, the judge will just throw it out for being frivolous. Agreed on the daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.