To Scam or not to Scam that is the Question.

[Thaedium]

Not quite Tomorrow, though I like the analogy, amiss as it is (I would like to see that contractor convicted). Preying on an 88 year old widow is a far cry from the op who's conspicuously consuming the bargain of the century before doing his homework.

There are statutes protecting the 88 year old widow from predatory contractors. There are no statutes protecting the op from backing out of a bargain because he got cold feet.

I believe Hifihoney could comment better then I on this one. But its my understanding that there are an awful lot of skeezy contractors out there who do poor, if not down right deceptive jobs. There are no laws protecting that 88 year old woman, far from it. That scenario is a bit much, but the concept of a roofer going up there, re-laying shingle poorly, and not to code is entirely possible. You could end up with leaks within a couple weeks after such a surface job. And you have no legal recourse to get your money back. The job was done, the materials were bought, and there is a finished product. Regardless if it works as its supposed to, people who pay to have contractors come in and don't do research on that contractor beforehand stand a good chance of being ripped off.

The same applies to this situation, our OP didn't do his reasearch first and he nearly paid the man for a product that from all appearances is great. The reality of the product is a whole other ball-game. He had a sort of warning bell go off in his head. He felt something wasn't right, and so investigated that mindset further. What he discovered was a bogus product. Similarly, if you didn't do your research on a contractor for some home renovation, and your talking to him and you've laid out the groundworks for what you want to do and budget. Everything is on the up and up, but for some reason you get this feeling that things aren't adding up. He's offering to do this big job for so cheap? Hows that? So you end up doing some research and contact a few other people who have had jobs done by him to learn there were reoccuring problems, the budget was inadequate. He never showed up on time, what have you. So you pull the plug on him the day he shows up to do the work. You find this morally reprehensible? Absolutely absurd if you do. I cannot fault anyone who would chose to do this, its just good common sense. The trigger isn't pulled until he pays for it, and if he chose not to, then he damn well is within his right. It's his money, and the seller will have no problem finding another buyer, so no harm no foul.

Frankly, this debate is silly in and of itself. I accept 100% that there are people whos opinion differs vastly from mine, and you are more then welcome to it. For some reason I always feel compelled to convince people of mine though (I know, not an endearing trait, lol).

To the op: Do as you wish with the wayward advice, but judgment day cometh, so prepare yourself for the consequences of your actions.

Well you had it right up until you started slinging religious dogma into it. The only judgement he'll have to deal with is his own. As I'm sure he will be regretting following through with such a poor decision to buy that crap. No one but him will lose out on this if he goes through with buying it, and no one will lose out on this if he pulls the plug on this whole gimmick.

So in the words of Judge Judy... "Judgement for the Plaintiff", in the amount of not paying for garbage and being held bound by morally misguided views.

 

[Tomorrow]

I understand...and agree. But I believe he should nonetheless pay. Do the research before you pull the trigger!

Should the toothless granny have done her research? The contractor did not lie. She agreed to a contract. She is no more or less legally protected than the OP. You need to be a little more consistent with your logic, John.

I think you'll find that the courts protect the innocent (who you would call the "ignorant") against price gouging, no matter the circumstance, intentional or not. (Sorry AverageJoe.)

 

[Johnd]

There are no laws protecting that 88 year old woman, far from it.

Try again.

The same applies to this situation

Not remotely the same situation.

our OP didn't do his reasearch first

Precisely.

What he discovered was a bogus product.

Please elaborate on what is "bogus."

Similarly, if you didn't do your research on a contractor for some home renovation, and your talking to him and you've laid out the groundworks for what you want to do and budget. Everything is on the up and up, but for some reason you get this feeling that things aren't adding up. He's offering to do this big job for so cheap? Hows that? So you end up doing some research and contact a few other people who have had jobs done by him to learn there were reoccuring problems, the budget was inadequate. He never showed up on time, what have you. So you pull the plug on him the day he shows up to do the work.

Try again. Enter a contract and fail to pay...it's called quantum meruit. Ask your lawyer.

You find this morally reprehensible? Absolutely absurd if you do.

Morally, and more on point, legally.

I cannot fault anyone who would chose to do this, its just good common sense. The trigger isn't pulled until he pays for it, and if he chose not to, then he damn well is within his right. It's his money, and the seller will have no problem finding another buyer, so no harm no foul.

We'll see. Common sense? I think not. Common sense is doing your homework before taking the test. No harm, no foul? If not, the seller is well within his rights to pursue every legal option available. Someting to think about, isn't it? What if the seller has been harmed, and cannot sell it for this price. Or, it takes him fifty hours to sell it again? is he not entitled to be recompensed?

Frankly, this debate is silly in and of itself. I accept 100% that there are people whos opinion differs vastly from mine, and you are more then welcome to it. For some reason I always feel compelled to convince people of mine though (I know, not an endearing trait, lol).

No, I don't think it silly. It is a matter of ethics and law. If the op and others choose to shun both...

Well you had it right up until you started slinging religious dogma into it. The only judgement he'll have to deal with is his own. As I'm sure he will be regretting following through with such a poor decision to buy that crap. No one but him will lose out on this if he goes through with buying it, and no one will lose out on this if he pulls the plug on this whole gimmick.

So in the words of Judge Judy... "Judgement for the Plaintiff", in the amount of not paying for garbage and being held bound by morally misguided views.

.
That's a lot of "stuff." Religous dogma? Morally misguided? How about legally bound?

 

[zildjian]

Does anybody else think this thread has run it's course...???

 

[Johnd]

Should the toothless granny have done her research? The contractor did not lie. She agreed to a contract. She is no more or less legally protected than the OP. You need to be a little more consistent with your logic, John.

I think you'll find that the courts protect the innocent (who you would call the "ignorant") against price gouging, no matter the circumstance, intentional or not. (Sorry AverageJoe.)

Ah, Tomorrow...the "Innocent."

Please expound who amongst us, least of all the op in the instant case, is "innocent."

 

[Johnd]

Does anybody else think this thread has run it's course...???

Not quite yet there zildjian.

 

[Thaedium]

Try again.


Not remotely the same situation.


Precisely.


Please elaborate on what is "bogus."


Try again. Enter a contract and fail to pay...it's called quantum meruit. Ask your lawyer.


Morally, and more on point, legally.


We'll see. Common sense? I think not. Common sense is doing your homework before taking the test. No harm, no foul? If not, the seller is well within his rights to pursue every legal option available. Someting to think about, isn't it? What if the seller has been harmed, and cannot sell it for this price. Or, it takes him fifty hours to sell it again? is he not entitled to be recompensed?


No, I don't think it silly. It is a matter of ethics and law. If the op and others choose to shun both...

.
That's a lot of "stuff." Religous dogma? Morally misguided? How about legally bound?

Well now I just plain feel like an idiot Maybe I should have done more research before opening my mouth, eh?

That said... I've been known to not follow every rule in the book. In this case, I'd risk breaking it. But thats just my "legally" misguided ways

 

[Davemcc]

Here's your moral dilemma. Though this is a standard scam, this guy is substantially telling the truth (even though it will be 40 years before the roof collapses). The woman sees he is wearing an official Roofrepair sweatshirt and has a sign on his truck, she assumes he is legit. She has no computer to search and has grown trusting by force of her age. Her more knowledgeable husband recently passed away, so she has no one to turn to. And she is scared of the imminent cave-in of her room. She signs a contract for $10,000.

With 88 years experience behind her, one might hope that she would have simply thrown the contractor off her property. He would have been lucky never to have knocked on my grandmother's door. She was so bitter and mistrusting of human nature and so ingrained with the penny-pinching depression-era mentality, he would not likely have escaped without an extra bodily cavity when she was done with him.

But let's say that this trusting old lady paid $10g for a $50 job, she does have recourse when she figures out the scam. Since she signed a contract, we can assume that this was a licensed contractor instead of a fly-by-night cash deal. Most licensed contractors are required to post a bond with a municipality. She can certainly file a complaint with the licensing commission for questionable practices. There are standard rate expectations in the industry. $10g would be expected for a roof replacement, not a roof wash. The licensing commission would have to see the disparity between the work performed and the dollar amount. She also has access to a civil suit against the contractor.

But I would still have to say that a labor scam preying on the elderly or mentally infirm is substantially different from an open public auction where the buyer must actively seek out the seller. The simple act of seeking out the seller also implies that the buyer also has the wherewithal to conduct due process. If the buyer actively locates the seller, but doesn't conduct his due process...

 

[Tomorrow]

But I would still have to say that a labor scam preying on the elderly or mentally infirm is substantially different from an open public auction where the buyer must actively seek out the seller. The simple act of seeking out the seller also implies that the buyer also has the wherewithal to conduct due process. If the buyer actively locates the seller, but doesn't conduct his due process...

It is a different set of circumstances that utilizes all the same activities (service/product offered, uninformed decision, service/product accepted, and a resultant ripped off buyer)...and probably contains identical intentions by the sellers. Under the law, both buyers "should" pay the scoundrels and seek fair reimbursement under the judicial umbrella.

My point in bringing up the more harmful, heart-wrenching, old lady analogy was to show that the moral high-ground really isn't very high when saying "the OP should pay up".

But the legal recourse is.

 

[highfihoney]

Should the toothless granny have done her research? The contractor did not lie. She agreed to a contract. She is no more or less legally protected than the OP. You need to be a little more consistent with your logic, John.

I think you'll find that the courts protect the innocent (who you would call the "ignorant") against price gouging, no matter the circumstance, intentional or not. (Sorry AverageJoe.)

I think this was supposed to be in retort to Johnd,it shows up as quoting Hifihoney.

 

[Tomorrow]

I think this was supposed to be in retort to Johnd,it shows up as quoting Hifihoney.

It is for Johnd. I have no idea how your name got in there, HFH. I think you and I agree on this issue. OTOH, almost nobody agrees with John. (J/K John.)
---------------------------------
Hmmmm...I just placed this post...and now it's quoted as me saying it. I think we have a software bug crawling around AH. And your post quotes John.

HEY CLINT.....

 

[avaserfi]

Tomorrow this isn't a bug in the software, somewhere along the way extra HTML code was added (or not deleted) from the mix. If you look at the top of your last post you will see this: "

" If someone tries to quote your post it will say it was originally posted by highfihoney not you! Check it out (notice how above the quote is HTML code for your quote:

It is for Johnd. I have no idea how your name got in there, HFH. I think you and I agree on this issue. OTOH, almost nobody agrees with John. (J/K John.)
---------------------------------
Hmmmm...I just placed this post...and now it's quoted as me saying it. I think we have a software bug crawling around AH. And your post quotes John.

HEY CLINT.....

Hope this helps your problem!

 

[Johnd]

Hope this helps your problem!

Not even close!

 

[stripey22]

yeah sounds dodgy leave it alone if i were you