4 ms·
What laws would be broken in this case?
by vageli 6y ago
What laws would be broken in this case?
- jfk13 6y agoSomething about conspiracy to defraud, maybe?
- vageli 6y agoHow is that fraud? "Everyone, buy this product and return it to the store for a full refund," doesn't sound like fraud to me. It doesn't result in personal or financial gain to the people perpetrating it, either. edit: so who is in trouble here? The person calling for people to do it with their twitter following or the twitter followers? I'm not saying that buying the app and returning it is not fraud if you entered into the transaction in bad faith and with intent to cause damage to the dev, I'm saying calling people to do that is not fraud.
- munk-a 6y agoYou would be fraudulently filling out the request form - unless Apple has a "Reason for refund: For the Lulz" in its drop down box. You would also probably committing some sort of credit card fraud by enacting a transaction in bad faith. I think the form is definitely fraud but I wouldn't be surprised if Visa went after you for something as well, they need to actually process all those charges and charge backs and it does cost them some amount of money to do so.
- Dylan16807 6y agoIf I say the product wasn't useful to me, that's going to be completely true.
- gambiting 6y agoYou are entering into a purchase agreement without the intention to actually purchase the item - that is most definitely fraud. It's like ordering a brand new car without the intention to actually ever pick it up, but instead to cost the dealer money. If you're acting maliciously that's definitely fraud.
- vageli 6y agoI completely agree and understand. My statements were about the person inciting others to commit the fraud without so many words. Basically, I was saying it is not fraud to tell your twitter followers to buy and return an item. It may be conspiracy though.
- ralph84 6y agoTortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference
- vageli 6y agoI've heard of this but am curious, does this also apply to people calling for boycotting companies?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mellavora 6y agoYes, but you need to serve notice to the offending party, which might be hard if they are not a US person... likewise collecting damages, etc
- munk-a 6y agoThere might be something subtly illegal here - but I assume Apple would just refuse to honor the refund if they thought it was fraudulent - so it wouldn't be up to Apple to collect damages - it'd be up to the other party to collect their refund (assuming they can legally compel Apple to pay up)
- klank 6y agoHow does that apply? In hypothetical this thread has been discussing nobody is damaging the contractual relationship itself nor is anybody preventing either company from fulfilling their contractual obligations. In fact, it's the strength and continued operation of the contractual relationship that would cause the economic harm. I don't think tortious interference applies here.
- im3w1l 6y agoIanal but it might go under tortious interference?
- vageli 6y agoI was thinking more along the lines of criminal laws, I should have been more specific in my word choice.
- barbecue_sauce 6y agoThe word "lawsuit", at least in American english, has the connotation of a civil rather than a criminal case.
- klank 6y agoNo, I don't believe it would apply. Tortious interference is when you interfere with the contractual relationship itself. In this case the continued obligations is what would drive the economic harm, thus tortious interference wouldn't apply.