Originally Posted by MMC Racing

What you saying makes no sense first of all. There are criminal courts and civil courts. This would be in front of a civil court judge.. All the civil court judge will do is make the contract whole. There is plenty of debate on what the contract included, but that would be the judge's decision.

2nd - no DA is going to take this on to prosecute. So no criminal charges. The Larceny charge would be shakey as the court would need to rule on the intent of the buyer (or stealer as you refer). The question would center around the buyer depriving the seller of his money. If the day 1 intent was to steal the kit it has not be stated here. What I see is a person potentially making a bad choice on how to settle a dispute.

Originally Posted by Jeff92se

It's clear that the guy reversed the entire charge AND waited to post until he did in order to hold all the cards during the negotiation. Ala setting the ridiculous terms of subtracting $1,000 from the deal.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

I must have missed the law that said someone has to make a public post to settle a dispute. Most disputes should be handled in private - such as a phone call.

Originally Posted by doug

you don't think a civil court judge is going to make a decision based on a criminal offense?

its Grand Larceny buddy.. the judge may not be trying the kid for stealing, but he is not going to award the kid for stealing..

stealing is stealing.. it gets no granular than that. You can't buy something and its to your dissatisfaction and keep the money and the item, you have to choose one, at that point you have just breached any contract or transation that was created.

As i said to you earlier.. and now its very relevant. If you sell me you're GTR and its not to my liking, i cannot keep the money and the GTR, and if we go to CIVIL Court, no judge is going to look past the fact i kept the money and the GTR .. its simple man.. its Stealing.. it doesn't get any simpler than that.. its stealing

Originally Posted by doug

you must have also missed the law that says when someone buys an item and they are not satisfied they can keep the money and the item..

I hope to God you never sell an item on this forum, because i would hope any buyer that is some what disgruntled with your item gets to keep your item and their money and you can go to court and fight it out.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

It is not stealing just because you say it 10 times.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

What you saying makes no sense first of all. There are criminal courts and civil courts. This would be in front of a civil court judge.. All the civil court judge will do is make the contract whole. There is plenty of debate on what the contract included, but that would be the judge's decision.

2nd - no DA is going to take this on to prosecute. So no criminal charges. The Larceny charge would be shakey as the court would need to rule on the intent of the buyer (or stealer as you refer). The question would center around the buyer depriving the seller of his money. If the day 1 intent was to steal the kit it has not be stated here. What I see is a person potentially making a bad choice on how to settle a dispute.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

It is not stealing just because you say it 10 times.

Originally Posted by doug

oh but it is.. it is

Originally Posted by Done Deal DR

The fact that he has the money AND physical property (of which he hasn't paid for) makes it stealing and I don't see how you could see it any other way until the "buyer" returns the full amount, or possibly in the $3,700 range, at which point then he has the right to nit pick over some coins. Until then he will be hard pressed to get any sympathy from most any rational person.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

Any question of stealing goes to intent - which is not evident. Businesses withhold funds all the time while also possessing property while contract disputes are being resolved.

The central question to answer around the stealing charge is was his intent to deprive the seller of his money permanently?

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

I must have missed the law that said someone has to make a public post to settle a dispute. Most disputes should be handled in private - such as a phone call.

Originally Posted by Jeff92se

Let me clarify something.

"clear" /= "law"

Clear in this context represents intent. As he could have posted on the forums long about about his frustrations of not being able to contact the seller.

Of course it could have been handled though private means. But it's about who can slander the other better in the forums. Or else there would be no reason to make it public yes?

And I agree, if he wanted to reverse the charges, fine. But return the sheit at the same time. Until the parts that AREN'T indispute are paid, it's fraud.

Originally Posted by mezer

OR...

- Kid buys used "FULL" TT Kit for $4,000. (A Full TT kit comes with 440cc injectors)
- Kid finds out he didn't get 440cc injectors, but he got 370cc injectors.
- Kid tries to contact the seller, because he wants some of his money refunded, because the add stated it was a full tt kit, which means it comes with 440cc injectors, but he only got 370cc injectors.
- Seller ignores him because he doesn't want to refund anything
- Kid finally reverses the transaction because he's been ignored for 6 months.
- Seller finally comes out of hiding and wants to talk. Only because his money is missing. Seller should have responded months ago.
- Kid should just give the difference back (3700), but he's stalling. Probably doesn't have the money anymore and is trying to get it.
- The Kid will pay the $3700..., eventually.

It's both peoples fault. The kid had every right to reverse the transaction. The kid didn't get what the seller was advertising, and the seller was ignoring him. The kid couldn't reverse just $300, he had to reverse the whole thing. The kid should def give him the difference in money back immediatly, and not wait like he's doing.

Originally Posted by doug

now you're reaching.. no intent?

so you're saying its not his intent to keep the money? i bet you're going to tell me thats purely psychological and only the buyer would know if he had the intent on keeping the money or not?

then how the hell would you know that it wasn't his intent or not?

it doesn't matter .. he kept the kit and the money.. he stole, thats the end result.. its stealing.. his psychy plays no part here.. he stole, he stole, he stole.. fck what his intent was.. he kept the money and the kit.. its stealing

I know you.. you're bored and you're looking for a debate to play devils advocate and you are arguing for the sake of killing time, but you're losing this argument faster than the Captain of the Titanic.. the guy stole.. its stealing.. find another thread to play devils advocate

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

You are the one that keeps bringing up grand larceny. Mabe you should research what goes into making the charge. In a case like this, intent is a central question to making that charge stick.

Originally Posted by Jeff92se

Okay, then what exactly IS his intent?

Originally Posted by Done Deal DR

...but we do know for a fact the kid has the turbo kit and the money. Does that honestly sound completely okay to you MMC? Injectors, inshmectors, who cares, this kid is now classified a stealer until he puts the money back in sweettalker's hands.

Originally Posted by MMC Racing

Who knows. Doug was right in that this is a philosophical discussion. We only know biased information from both sides to work from.