|
|
|
|
|
|
by amirmc
5214 days ago
|
|
|
I think that's a weak argument in this case. It's not like the author 'cracked his way in'. He got a cheaper price because he learned something from a friend and tried an experiment, which worked. Using something you've learned to get a better price seems fine with me. Especially, if it's 'ok' for someone stumbling around with the wrong user-agent. To me, it just feels like a form of arbitrage. |
|
|
(a) a representation made of some fact
(b) the materiality of that fact (the fact has to matter)
(c) the representation has to be false
(d) the person making the representation has to know it's false
(e) and they have to lie with an intent that someone else act on it
(f) and someone else has to actually be be fooled
(g) and rely on the lie
(h) and the lie has to be about something they had a right to ask (ie, not about marital status in a job interview)
(i) and thus incur damage.
You weaken a fraud case by saying the dispute is over an opinion and not a fact (a), or that the person who got something for nothing didn't realize they were lying (b), or they lied, but without intent (maybe they always lie about this question) (e).
But if all the elements fit, as they do in this case, you do not in fact have a weak case. You can, oh yes, you can, have "paid=true" in your URL and count on fraud statutes to have your back.
A lot of legal stuff becomes clearer when you realize that the court do not buy --- not even a little bit --- the nerdly tenet that "there is no way to prove intent because you can't really know what someone was thinking and maybe they weren't intending to do anything wrong". The courts have 2 centuries of case history of judging intent.