The Ethics of Gun Sales

Edward Tinker · 09-29-2008, 03:40 PM

If both sellers interpretation at the time was all matching, you later saying it isn't, doesn't change their interpretation at the time. There can be no fraud when the seller represented as "he believed at the time". If I felt that a 1929 police luger was correct having an unnumbered FP and subsequent determination by collectors say it should be numbered; that isn't fraud, I sold it as I beleived at the time.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it is fraud (in your examples). In your case of his lawyer saying versus what you are saying; well, the only way to find out if a judge agrees with your interpretation is to sue him.

But your use of the word fraud is too open and I believe wrong.
Since you like to be exact, fraud is what? I believe it is the actual misrepresentation of an item.

If the seller knew he was selling something defective, then it is fraud.

Is it 100% mechanically sound? (no fraud) Or is it just cosmetically unsound? (I have not been able to grasp what you are actually saying in your description btw). Sometimes a simple explanation and not a 3 paragraph lawyer blah, blah goes over best with me (sorry, its true, I am a bit dense at times, ask my wife).

OR is it and was it unmechanically unsound; then it is fraud in my mind.

Ed

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

09-29-2008, 03:40 PM	#23
Edward Tinker Super Moderator Eternal Lifer LugerForum Patron Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: North of Spokane, WA Posts: 15,974 Thanks: 2,072 Thanked 4,609 Times in 2,123 Posts	If both sellers interpretation at the time was all matching, you later saying it isn't, doesn't change their interpretation at the time. There can be no fraud when the seller represented as "he believed at the time". If I felt that a 1929 police luger was correct having an unnumbered FP and subsequent determination by collectors say it should be numbered; that isn't fraud, I sold it as I beleived at the time. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it is fraud (in your examples). In your case of his lawyer saying versus what you are saying; well, the only way to find out if a judge agrees with your interpretation is to sue him. But your use of the word fraud is too open and I believe wrong. Since you like to be exact, fraud is what? I believe it is the actual misrepresentation of an item. If the seller knew he was selling something defective, then it is fraud. Is it 100% mechanically sound? (no fraud) Or is it just cosmetically unsound? (I have not been able to grasp what you are actually saying in your description btw). Sometimes a simple explanation and not a 3 paragraph lawyer blah, blah goes over best with me (sorry, its true, I am a bit dense at times, ask my wife). OR is it and was it unmechanically unsound; then it is fraud in my mind. Ed