|
|
|
|
|
|
by Sujan
2543 days ago
|
|
|
Fraud usually requires that the entity doing it gains something from it, especially if we are talking about a "criminal act" as the parent did. (IANAL) The civil side might be different, but that is not what the parent insinuated. (And yes, my question to the parent was obviously meant to show that I disagree.) |
|
|
They got your money; so it's obtaining benefit by deception. If it says in the product specification that it does something that it doesn't do then it's fraud, which is criminal.
It's a de minimis form of selling you a product that they know to not include the features they sold.
But, police wouldn't pursue it (they don't even bother with burglary under O(£1000s) in UK); but you could sue for lost damages and you should in theory be successful.