NationStates Jolt Archive

So, since we have some sharp legal mind here, I was wondering how the USA law defines "Fraud". The reason I ask is recently a company (Kuju that is based in the UK) released a product, Rail Simulator. However, the Rail Simulator fell way short of the populace expectation, and now Kuju is doing damage control on all the forums, mainly by telling us Americans that we're too mean. Trust me, they're not too mean, if someone release a half ass product and charge $40 (US) then I think we have a right as customers to be pissed. Anyways, one of the posters on a forum that I visited said this.

Here in the Colonies when someone sells a product that is missing half of it's basic parts it's called FRAUD for which there can be legal consequences which I'm sure you would like to avoid.

Now, while I can understand why he's pissed that Kuju sold a half ass product, but is this really fraud, or is there a better legal term? Also, can anyone really sue over a product that was promised (Kuju promised "The Most realistic Rail Simulator..ever") but never met? I mean software company release half ass products all the time but they never gotten sued over it. They just mainly lost alot of money, which I've actually been encouraging. I'd think a better message would be to vote with their wallet and not drag it to court.

Any thoughts?

It comes as no surprise that a post about the inability to look up the legal definition of "fraud" is about that fraud being perpetrated in the form of a computer train simulator that isn't 'realistic' enough.

"We would like the court to record that the train indeed does go forward, and our motion for dismissal of the case."

I think it's fraud when it promises some specific function but doesn't deliver them. Claiming it's the best ever anything is a subjective term, and I don't believe you can sue anybody for fraud if you don't agree. But then again, I'm no law person, that's just common sense talking here really.

I don't think this amounts to fraud. In any case, is it their fault that people have unrealistic expectations of their game? And why didn't people check out a review or two before buying it; if it is really that bad, they'd be cut down in reviews. Besides that, it is very rare these days to buy a computer program that doesn't have half it's parts missing; that's what patches and updates are for. And if you have bad luck, you can pay for those again as well.

"Best rail simulator... ever" is a subjective claim that could be disputed no matter what.

If they had promised a specific feature (like multiplayer) and not delivered, then maybe you could sue them for fraud. There are laws about false advertising. However, I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know for certain.

Hmm. My aunt is a lawyer who deals with business law. Maybe I'll shoot her an e-mail.

I'm not a legal mind but I have listened to my parents (both who work for Revenue), and this sounds more like False Advertising than fraud.

In criminal law, fraud is the crime or offense of deliberately deceiving another in order to damage them– usually, to obtain property or services unjustly. Fraud can be accomplished through the aid of forged objects. In the criminal law of common law jurisdictions it may be called "theft by deception," "larceny by trick," "larceny by fraud and deception" or something similar.
Fraud can be committed through many methods, including mail, wire, phone, and the internet (computer crime and internet fraud).

What is it that the simulator does not actually do? :confused:

But yeah, it sounds more like false advertising if it was promised to do one thing and then didn't.

My definition of fraud doesn't have to do with promises or expectation, but with title transfer. It is fraud when you have transferred title to someone but then block it; it is their property now, not yours. (So if I write in a contract that I will give you my car tomorrow, but then refuse to give it, then it is fraud because it is theft of that which you have title to.)

"Fraud" in its most basic terms is an intentional deception made for the purposes of causing injury. It is the making of statements which the other party reasonably relied upon which willfully and knowingly contained materially relevant misrepresentations and/or omissions.

As far as this goes...ehh, I can see it going either way. The fact that the statement is subjective calls into question whether one should reasonably rely upon it.

My definition of fraud doesn't have to do with promises or expectation, but with title transfer. It is fraud when you have transferred title to someone but then block it; it is their property now, not yours. (So if I write in a contract that I will give you my car tomorrow, but then refuse to give it, then it is fraud because it is theft of that which you have title to.)

Um...no, that's not fraud. That's not fraud in the slightest. Breach of contract yes, but not fraud.

"Fraud" in its most basic terms is an intentional deception made for the purposes of causing injury. It is the making of statements which the other party reasonably relied upon which willfully and knowingly contained materially relevant misrepresentations and/or omissions.

As far as this goes...ehh, I can see it going either way. The fact that the statement is subjective calls into question whether one should reasonably rely upon it.

So, when I was in college, and a woman I had been going out with for weeks had said, "we'll fuck when we get back to your room" and then she doesn't, and I am a victim of "emotional distress" as a result, I can sue her for fraud?

I think not...

So, when I was in college, and a woman I had been going out with for weeks had said, "we'll fuck when we get back to your room" and then she doesn't, and I am a victim of "emotional distress" as a result, I can sue her for fraud?

I think not...

Can you sue her? Of course you can.

Can you win? Well that's entirely another story.

The term 'legal' in the title draws lawyers and lawyer-wannabes like 'sex' draws normal people.

The term 'legal' in the title draws lawyers and lawyer-wannabes like 'sex' draws normal people.

Here it is again. Lawyer-sex -- you and Neo...

Here it is again. Lawyer-sex -- you and Neo...You wanna watch, don't you?

You wanna watch, don't you?

Ummmm...I'd probably faint at the first habeas corpus and never make it to any of the really dirty Latin parts.

The term 'legal' in the title draws lawyers and lawyer-wannabes like 'sex' draws normal people.

No no, sex works too

Ummmm...I'd probably faint at the first habeas corpus and never make it to any of the really dirty Latin parts.
Pervert.

No no, sex works too

Oh, so having 'legal' AND 'sex' in the title would be absolutely irresistable, hmmm?

Black's Law Dictionary states Fraud:

An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right. A false representation of a matter of fact, wheither by words or by conduct, by or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture. A generic term, embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth, and includes all suprise, trick, cunning, dissembling, and any unfair way by which another is cheated.....<snip>.....as distinguished from negligence, it is always positive, intentional.

I think that is the key...intent.

I think that is the key...intent.

The trick to lawyering is that we make up nonsensical words to make what we do sound intelligent. To whit. It's not "intent" it's "scienter"

The trick to lawyering is that we make up nonsensical words to make what we do sound intelligent. To whit. It's not "intent" it's "scienter"
Geez, I've been doing that for years in engineering and for years in physics before that. I thought I was on to something original.

The trick to lawyering is that we make up nonsensical words to make what we do sound intelligent. To whit. It's not "intent" it's "scienter"

I'm a number cruncher, I don't get that luxury. ;)

Well, I'm glad I didn't obtain that game illegally. Would have been a waste of time it seems.

Geez, I've been doing that for years in engineering and for years in physics before that. I thought I was on to something original.

The difference between your occupations and that of a lawyer is one of degrees of bullshit.

It's probably the wit of a lawyer that got our degrees labelled B.S. and such, when in fact, the lawyers are the creators of every bit of bullshit in the world.

About the closest you can get to being a lawyer is being a weatherman with a side business in prostitution.

The difference between your occupations and that of a lawyer is one of degrees of bullshit.

It's probably the wit of a lawyer that got our degrees labelled B.S. and such, when in fact, the lawyers are the creators of every bit of bullshit in the world.

About the closest you can get to being a lawyer is being a weatherman with a side business in prostitution.
It's funny you'd describe it like that. I had a boss a few years back that went to night school and got his law degree. Waste of a good engineer; we held a wake when he retired. On one of his subsequent visits back to the lab, he described the profession in the same terms.

Um...no, that's not fraud. That's not fraud in the slightest. Breach of contract yes, but not fraud.

I would say that it is fraud, as it is a use of deception to commit theft against someone else's property. Unless, of course, you use promises, expectations and 'harm' instead of property titles as the basis for determining fraud. Of course, aside from using a definition that is vague and arbitrary, if you do that you slip in the idea that one can have title to another person; for instance, if I sign a contract with a company that says that I will work for them for the rest of my life, but don't have any intention of doing so and quit, one can say that I was deceptive, that I broke my promises, that I acted against the reasonable expectations of the company, and that I caused them harm because they no longer have my productive capacity and have to incur expenses to replace me. But they have no right to compel me at gunpoint to continue to work, because they do not own me and cannot force me to do what I do not want, since the title to my person is inalienable.

However, if I told the company that I would either work for them for the rest of my life or pay them $50,000, they could legitimately use force to collect the $50,000 if I deceive them by quitting and then not paying them the promised sum of money, since money is alienable and I have given them the title by way of contract yet have deceived them by refusing to hand over what they have transferred for. We can extend this to implicit contracts, wherein if I made a contract to purchase a box of cereal and am given a box of rocks instead, fraud has occurred because I have made a transfer of my titles for a title for cereal, and thus deceiving me out of either object away is an act of theft. Thus, the proper basis for determining what is fraud and what isn't is titles, not expectations.

My definition of fraud doesn't have to do with promises or expectation, but with title transfer. It is fraud when you have transferred title to someone but then block it; it is their property now, not yours. (So if I write in a contract that I will give you my car tomorrow, but then refuse to give it, then it is fraud because it is theft of that which you have title to.)

Sorry, but Neo Art is right. You aren't describing fraud, you are describing breach of contract. (Perhaps you a using a definition of fraud from some obscure non-common law country. You aren't using the term as it is used in the U.S. or in English-based legal systems.)

I would say that it is fraud, as it is a use of deception to commit theft against someone else's property.

You can call it "penguin pimping" if you like, but that won't change how your scenario is correctly analyzed under the law.

Unless, of course, you use promises, expectations and 'harm' instead of property titles as the basis for determining fraud.

Which is exactly how we determine fraud. :rolleyes::headbang:

Of course, aside from using a definition that is vague and arbitrary, if you do that you slip in the idea that one can have title to another person; for instance, if I sign a contract with a company that says that I will work for them for the rest of my life, but don't have any intention of doing so and quit, one can say that I was deceptive, that I broke my promises, that I acted against the reasonable expectations of the company, and that I caused them harm because they no longer have my productive capacity and have to incur expenses to replace me. But they have no right to compel me at gunpoint to continue to work, because they do not own me and cannot force me to do what I do not want, since the title to my person is inalienable.

However, if I told the company that I would either work for them for the rest of my life or pay them $50,000, they could legitimately use force to collect the $50,000 if I deceive them by quitting and then not paying them the promised sum of money, since money is alienable and I have given them the title by way of contract yet have deceived them by refusing to hand over what they have transferred for. We can extend this to implicit contracts, wherein if I made a contract to purchase a box of cereal and am given a box of rocks instead, fraud has occurred because I have made a transfer of my titles for a title for cereal, and thus deceiving me out of either object away is an act of theft. Thus, the proper basis for determining what is fraud and what isn't is titles, not expectations.

WTF are you babbling about?

Regardless, you appear to be arguing not that your scenario is fraud as the term is understood in the modern world, but rather for your own special definiton of fraud that nobody else uses.

*snip*Are you RPing the creation of a fantasy legal system?

Are you RPing the creation of a fantasy legal system?

We are a *rolls dice* totalitarian monarchy.

We are a *rolls dice* totalitarian monarchy.
:p