Subject:
|
Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 15 Oct 1999 14:57:06 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
{lpieniazek@}NoMoreSpam{novera.com}
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> A few questions:
>
> Does common sense have to do with the definition of fraud? That is,
> what an average person would believe.
If you're asking me for a legal definition, I'm not sure. but my common
sense opinion is that common sense is indeed required.
>
> Does one's belief in a statement's truth have to do with whether it is
> fraud or not?
Here I think i am on a bit firmer ground when I say that I think,
legally, saying something is one way when you know darn well it is
another, or omitting material facts in an attempt to leave an impression
(lying by omission) is pretty clear cut fraud.
Conversely, I believe that if if one relys on representations made or
facts generally accepted to be true, it's not fraud even if it turns out
to not be the case.
I think the crux of it is that fraud turns on intent... was there an
intent to deceive? And intent as we know is hard to prove. (you've heard
me arguing against intent before here, I prefer measuring outcomes)
Contrast with Negligence, which seems to turn on the degree of care one
takes. If one beleives something to be true, doesn't check, but could
have easily checked to see if it was, and that something turns out to be
false and in so being false, harms the buyer, it's negligence even if it
isn't fraud.
I'm not a lawyer but I play one on LUGNET(tm).
>
> Is insider trading fraud? If it ever is, then how 'inside' does the
> information being used have to be in order for it to be fraud? If it's
> always fraud, then why isn't it fraud for me to buy LEGO on sale and
> resale at boosted price?
Well, I don't think most forms of what is currently defined as insider
trading actually are wrong. And if that doesn't set off a firestorm I
don't know what will.
(where I find insider trading wrong is where I know something damaging
and I exit my position before it becomes public knowledge, when I had a
fiduciary duty as an officer of the company to disclose it to
everyone... I'm OK with buying stock up in advance of the release of
good news.)
But all this is murky and I make no claims here, I'm more convincible
(to make changes in my position) here than I am, say, on removing price
tags or on taxation.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Blue Hopper Car Mania...
|
| (...) Well, I sort of meant that if everyone affected by the deal agrees to it, then nothing else matters. I assume you agree that you can waive your rights if you so choose. (...) I know that Libertarians are into the Force 'n' Fraud phrase, and I (...) (25 years ago, 15-Oct-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
178 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
