Posted on 03/04/2005 12:33:13 PM PST by llevrok
I am not sure why you suggest that? They are a deal, it is understood that inexchange for a discount, the card holder lets the company gather their personal information. Where's the fraud. . . you do read the things before you sign them right?
"unseemly" .. "should be illegal"
UNLESS THE DEMS HAD THOUGHT OF IT FIRST!! LOL! Tooooo funny.
I'm a little confused on this point. My impression was that the potential criminal was a third party who committed the forgeries.
any port in a storm!!!
Not if they signed the check. They could just as easily sent out rebate checks to homeowners on behalf of the building association instead for certain neighborhoods.
Cashing the check was their choice.
You miss the key fact...they made a false representation as to the purpose of the survery. They compensated people to participate in a survey to estimate trends. They did not do what they claimed they would with the information - their inducement was false, they fraudulently induced people to participate that otherwise might not have. That is what makes it fraud.
“Our association is conducting this study to help estimate trends in home ownership and demographics relating to home affordability in the Puget Sound Region.”
Several of us are exploring the morality and legality of the survey independent of any "two wrongs make a right" fallacy.
Your premise implies that the survey was "wrong" but I do not see any supporting argument.
I don't have any issues with the sending of checks and then looking at the signatures. I do have a problem with the 'survey'
"Tom McCabe, the group’s executive vice president, said about 120 checks or surveys have been returned. About 20 of them raised questions for McCabe."
Well .. if the dems are saying "this should be illegal" - you can bet your sweet bippy - IT'S NOT ILLEGAL.
And .. "fraud" is bilking someone out of something or promising them something and delivering nothing. This did neither.
If people were worried about having someone use their signature for illicit purposes - they could have thrown the check away - or returned it unendorsed. And .. those who did endorse the check got to keep the $10. You can't tag this with fraud at all.
I don't go around calling large women pregnant without more info either. I'm just funny that way.
One thing you have to admire, these are pretty clever guys for folks with sawdust in every pore!
You mean like a company telling someone their answers will be used for a particular purpose so they will complete the survey...and then not delivering on that promise?
(even if it is fraud, there looks to be no compensable damages....but it is probably fraud nonetheless)
Different laws - criminal - civil - separate court systems and everything. The drug users were committing a crime. The Builders group was not committing a crime.
Nope!
And .. I believe those people have already been put out of business - because they were perpetrating a fraud - and forcing the person to accept a product they did not order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.