I was just curious as to why people get pissed when someone says they'll buy one and exchange it for store credit (calling it fraud) but nobody has a problem with PM'ing a game that is clearly a misprint. Isn't that fraud kind of as well?
Don't get me wrong, I want the game for $5 too, and will try and PM, but I was just thinking......
Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also by made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.
To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made. Also, an opinion does not constitute an existing fact and cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion.
The misrepresentation or omission must be made knowingly and intentionally, not mistakenly or accidentally, sothat the person either knew or should have known of the falsity or acted in negligent disregard of its truth or falsity. The person charged with fraud must have intended the Plaintiff to rely on the misrepresentaion or omission and Plaintiff must have been injured by such reliance to prevail on the claim. Sometimes, it must be shown that Plaintiff's reliance was justifiable, and that upon easonable inquiry would not have discovered the truth of the matter. For injury or damage to be the result of fraud, it must be shown that, except for the fraud, the injury or damage would not have occurred.
Technically, there's a decent prima facia case to label it as fraud.
The sticking point would be proving intent, showing the person had previous knowledge and was acting in negligent disregard of the truth.