Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;JCB1983, post: 1328980, member: 23885&quot;]I found an old business law book laying around the house and this is what I found.</p><p><br /></p><p>A lot of what it appears we are talking about falls under &quot; Scienter &quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>**Scienter - is the legal word for &quot;guilty knowledge.&quot; Nonlawyers frequently believe that they can claim ignorance of the falsity of a statement and thus defeat a claim for fraud.&nbsp; However, scienter goes beyond actual knowlege- it includes careless indeifference to the truth, a lack of belief by the declarer in his/her statements.&nbsp; Whether scienter is present is a question for a properly instructed jury, and juries can be cynical about persons who &quot;unintentionally&quot; lie to gain an advantage.</p><p><br /></p><p>**Fraud- If a person enters into a contract as a result of the intentional misrepresentation or deceit of the other party to the contract, there is no meeting of the minds, no agreement, and hence no legal obligation.&nbsp; In most cases of mistake, both parties are innocent of wrongdoing-the minds simply did not meet.&nbsp; In the case of fraud, however, the minds not only do not meet, but one party is guilty of deception, dishonest conduct.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>On the flip-side, this is what it says under examples of misrepresentations of Material Facts:</p><p><br /></p><p>** Matters pertaining to value and matters asserted as opinion are generally not factual in nature and are not grounds for fraud.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Not sure how this all equates to the coin world.&nbsp; Seems like a lot of grey area.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>(Barron&#039;s &quot;Business Law&quot; Robert W. Emerson, J.D. Fifth Edition)[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in