3 ms·

Fraud requires mens rea. They are going to have to have a hell of a time proving mens rea when the local law expressly allows a consumer to exchange a defectiv

• slg 7y ago
  The old two wrongs make a right defense. I have a feeling this will be as successful in court as it was against my mom when I was 6 years old.
  • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >The old two wrongs make a right defense. Where the hell did you get that from my comment? I'm saying that no prosecutor is going to take a fraud case where the fact pattern is of a consumer manipulating a return system in order to achieve an outcome that was identical to one expressly allowed by their state law (return or exchange for non-defective example within 90 days).
    • slg 7y ago
      If a store overcharged you $5, are you allowed to break into the store after it closes to steal your $5 back? Because that seems to be your argument that you are justified in breaking the law as long as it returns you to some natural state of evenness.
• jedimastert 7y ago
  > Fraud requires mens rea You mean like saying you're going to return one item (the one amazon just sent you and the one you clicked on with the shipping date) and actually sending another (one you bought two years ago)? I think it'd be pretty easy to prove, tbh. That's not what I was referring to anyways. They almost certainly wouldn't go to court for a $50 backpack, but they can definitely bar you from using the service if they think you're going to cost them more money than you give.