3 ms·

As long as he's previously disclosed the fees involved with calling him, he's within the law. If the lackey who works for the would be vendor knows nothing abou

by delinka 13y ago

As long as he's previously disclosed the fees involved with calling him, he's within the law. If the lackey who works for the would be vendor knows nothing about the fees, that's not his problem because the company had been informed.

wnevets 13y ago
He may be within the law however I doubt at the start of the call he tells the lackey that he has zero indent on purchasing the product/service and just wants to keep the lackey on the line. To me that is a wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.
- pigscantfly 13y ago
  Then again, if the representative can do their job and make a truly compelling pitch, maybe he'll buy their product. I think it's unfair to assume that his interest in every tele-marketed product is absolutely nothing.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  That's not fraud. Let's look at the full definition. 1. a representation of an existing fact; 2. its materiality; 3. its falsity; 4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; 5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff; 6. the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; 7. the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; 8. the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and 9. consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff. The idea of this being 'fraud' dies at the very first point. He would have to outright lie to the salespeople, though explicit or strong implicit action, to say that he was planning to buy the product. The normal expectation on a cold call is that the person listening was not planning to buy at the point of contact, and will only buy if they are very convinced. (Yes this is the US definition but it makes it much clearer what kind of threshold you need to throw around criminal words.)
  - wnevets 13y ago
    you do realize that you can commit(or be a) fraud without it being criminal, right? In fact the definition I posted was 100% copied and pasted. https://www.google.com/#q=%22non+criminal+fraud%22 https://www.google.com/#q=%22non+criminal+fraud%22

by delinka 13y ago

wnevets 13y ago

He may be within the law however I doubt at the start of the call he tells the lackey that he has zero indent on purchasing the product/service and just wants to keep the lackey on the line. To me that is a wrongful deception intended to result in financial gain.

pigscantfly 13y ago
Then again, if the representative can do their job and make a truly compelling pitch, maybe he'll buy their product. I think it's unfair to assume that his interest in every tele-marketed product is absolutely nothing.
Dylan16807 13y ago
That's not fraud. Let's look at the full definition. 1. a representation of an existing fact; 2. its materiality; 3. its falsity; 4. the speaker's knowledge of its falsity; 5. the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff; 6. the plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity; 7. the plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation; 8. the plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and 9. consequent damages suffered by the plaintiff. The idea of this being 'fraud' dies at the very first point. He would have to outright lie to the salespeople, though explicit or strong implicit action, to say that he was planning to buy the product. The normal expectation on a cold call is that the person listening was not planning to buy at the point of contact, and will only buy if they are very convinced. (Yes this is the US definition but it makes it much clearer what kind of threshold you need to throw around criminal words.)
- wnevets 13y ago
  you do realize that you can commit(or be a) fraud without it being criminal, right? In fact the definition I posted was 100% copied and pasted. https://www.google.com/#q=%22non+criminal+fraud%22 https://www.google.com/#q=%22non+criminal+fraud%22