Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 2184602, member: 112&quot;]No, the law is not negotiable, but how you choose to interpret what the seller is, or is not, doing certainly is. And that is the key, and why what the ebay seller did is not illegal. Unethical, yes. Illegal, no.</p><p><br /></p><p>The seller used misleading advertising. In other words he made some statements which allows a potential buyer to draw their own conclusions regarding the item for sale. He did not make any hard and fast, false statements. And that&#039;s exactly the same thing the TV hucksters do. And that is why the TV hucksters and ebay sellers can get away with it.</p><p><br /></p><p>These are the claims made by the seller -</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><font size="6"><b>Original Unopened $20 Morgan Silver Dollar Roll Rainbow Toned 1904 ( P S O CC ?)</b></font></p><p><font size="5"><b>Beautifully Toned Toned End Coins, Rare Roll!</b></font></p><p><br /></p><p>Morgan Silver Dollars! Not one of these rolls has had a coin dated after 1904! You could find any of the following: Philadelphia, San Francisco, New Orleans or Carson City minted UNC Morgan Silver Dollars. Possible Keys or Older Dollars? These rolls are from a bankers personal collection locally, who did a lot of business with the FRB of Chicago. Personally, I feel that coin rolls are worth more unopened as the potential is what&#039;s worth the $$$ - not to mention the history! But, some of us prefer to find out for ourselves what could be lurking in that old roll - and it could be worth it!</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Your Nevada law says -</p><p><br /></p><p>(a) The person knows to be false or omitted</p><p>(b) The person intends another to rely on</p><p>(c) Results in a loss to any person who relied on the false representation or omission</p><p><br /></p><p>So, in order for the seller to be doing something illegal he first has to make a false claim. His claims are -</p><p><br /></p><p>- the rolls contain Morgan dollars - true</p><p>- the rolls are original - cannot be proved false given the subjective definition of an original roll</p><p>- the rolls are unopened - true, for you can easily see they are intact</p><p>- the end coins are toned - true</p><p>- that not one of these rolls has had a coin dated after 1904 (since he is clearly speaking in the past tense this does not apply to the roll at hand, he is merely describing previous rolls, so again not a false claim)</p><p>- the rolls could contain any of the 4 mints - true, he does not say they do contain, he merely says they could</p><p>- that the rolls are from a bankers personal collection</p><p><br /></p><p>That is the sum total of all claims and representations made by the seller. Not one of them is false. And his last claim is the only claim subject to any consideration or question. But in order for it to be illegal you would have to first prove that the rolls were not from a bankers personal collection. Could that be done ? Very doubtful. Remember, in a court of law you have to prove his guilt, he does not have to prove his innocence. No prosecutor would even touch such a case because he would know that no law was broken and that he had no chance of winning.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for something being omitted, what is left that could be omitted ? Nothing. Thus the seller did nothing illegal.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now you&#039;re probably going to claim that the seller made these rolls up himself, and that was omitted. But that is an assumption, and one that cannot be proved unless the seller were to willingly admit it. And I&#039;m pretty sure we all know that&#039;s never going to happen.</p><p><br /></p><p>So tell me Vic, exactly what part of the Nevada law did the seller break ?[/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