is the pottery barn full of idiots?

[El Diablo]

Monty,

Fraud.

[Monty_Brogan]

[ QUOTE ]
Monty,

Fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you lie to them?

And even if it is fraud, they've got to prove it, which is pretty much impossible. For clarification, this is wrong and I'm not advocating the practice.

[[censored]]

They are for the purposes of monetary gain, knowingly representing to the store something that is untrue and that results in a monetary loss for the store. This being that the speakers were purchased at that store. I'm pretty sure this would fall under fraud and as well as theft from fraud. Statutes like these are written pretty broadly so that just about any scam that someone can come up,is able to be prosecuted.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure in the above's accuracy.

[LionelHutz00]

I think that I would totally be a Mormon if I were allowed to drink and say [censored].

[Monty_Brogan]

Possibly. I'm no lawyer. The store doesn't lose money though. They just resell the item. And there's no way this gets prosecuted. Still, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's technically fraud.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Monty,

Fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you lie to them?

And even if it is fraud, they've got to prove it, which is pretty much impossible. For clarification, this is wrong and I'm not advocating the practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be fairly easy to prove actually as they had committed the exact same fraud multiple times with the exact same merchandise.

[Monty_Brogan]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be fairly easy to prove actually as they had committed the exact same fraud multiple times with the exact same merchandise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was assuming these were cash transactions. I'm not sure how you prove anything involving cash transactions. Regardless of whether it can or can't be proved, it's pretty lame.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Possibly. I'm no lawyer. The store doesn't lose money though. They just resell the item. And there's no way this gets prosecuted. Still, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's technically fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

the store loses a net $25 each timeit's commited. And this would absolutely get prosectuted, which has no bearing on whether or not it is legal.

................debit........credit
original sale
speakers........................75
cash................75

fraud return
cash............................100
speakers...........100*


* speakers are now marked at $100, but this is only because the store was mislead thus resulting in an incorrect entry. the correct and accurate entry is as follows

fraud return..........debit.....credit
cash..............................$100
speakers.............$75
loss on return.......$25
flows to income statement

[Monty_Brogan]

[ QUOTE ]
the store loses a net $25 each timeit's commited. And this would absolutely get prosectuted, which has no bearing on whether or not it is legal.

................debit........credit
original sale
speakers........................75
cash................75

fraud return
cash............................100
speakers...........100*


* speakers are now marked at $100, but this is only because the store was mislead thus resulting in an incorrect entry. the correct and accurate entry is as follows

fraud return..........debit.....credit
cash..............................$100
speakers.............$75
loss on return.......$25
flows to income statement

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait. Did they buy the speakers at Wal-Mart too? I misunderstood that? I'm saying there's no way it's provable or prosecutable. Regardless, this is asinine to argue over.

[swede123]

Good effort. Only error is the dollar amounts listed. Per Elaine's story the speakers were bought for $25, so the loss would be $75 per speaker, even more of a loss to Wally World.

Swede