PS4 Scam

[Sir Asvald]

1 minute ago, benji_ said:

pfft they wont

Up to you.

[AshleyAshes]

39 minutes ago, Revamp said:

Yes this is still classified as theft/fraud. I had nearly the same exact scenario happen to me previously.

He purposely did not disclose a major piece of detail to the operational function of the device to knowingly deceive him. That is very much so theft/fraud.

 

Not to mention, the threat alone of involving the police when they know they did the wrong thing will often times make them cave.

 

This would actually likely fall more under a civil suit, outside of criminal law.  If the seller sold a working PlayStation and it DOES fully work.  If they never advertised that it was not banned from PSN and the buyer didn't ask, that's more of a 'condition' issue.

 

It's a lot fuzzier than straight up 'fraud'.  It's not really in the same category as 'PS4 For Sale!  Works!' and it's dead as a doornail.

 

Oh and this is why you should test stuff before you buy it.  Granted I'd have not thought of testing it's connectivity ability but now I would.

[Revamp]

27 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

This would actually likely fall more under a civil suit, outside of criminal law.  If the seller sold a working PlayStation and it DOES fully work.  If they never advertised that it was not banned from PSN and the buyer didn't ask, that's more of a 'condition' issue.

 

It's a lot fuzzier than straight up 'fraud'.  It's not really in the same category as 'PS4 For Sale!  Works!' and it's dead as a doornail.

 

Oh and this is why you should test stuff before you buy it.  Granted I'd have not thought of testing it's connectivity ability but now I would.

I definitely see your point, but in things like this "Working" unless stated otherwise, implies it is fully functional of all standard functions.

In a sense, this would be similar to someone selling a "Working" TV, but all the input modules are burnt so it can only play the white noise channel 1 or whatever. Despite it powering on, that still isn't truly "Working".

 

And depending on his area, it likely would fall under a civil suit outside of criminal law, but when a similar thing happened to me, it was a felony if the value was above 300$ at the time. This would definitely ofcourse depend on the cop, and your lawyer if you actually pursued it.

 

Keep in mind this is taking it extremely far and 99.9% wouldn't happen due to the time investment to fully pursue it in court. I am just saying from the legal definition of the term.

In court however, not disclosing the full truth (It basically works, except for.....function) is still classified as lying.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.

"Misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact'" - The existing fact would be that online play is not working at all. The seller omitted this detail to make it more enticing for the buyer.

"The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made." - The buyer obvisouly wouldn't have purchased the product if he had known it was console banned from PSN. This would be a major detail that would indeed be "significant to the decision to be made" as it eliminates the capabilities of truly using the console.

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Revamp said:

I definitely see your point, but in things like this "Working" unless stated otherwise, implies it is fully functional of all standard functions.

In a sense, this would be similar to someone selling a "Working" TV, but all the input modules are burnt so it can only play the white noise channel 1 or whatever. Despite it powering on, that still isn't truly "Working".

 

And depending on his area, it likely would fall under a civil suit outside of criminal law, but when a similar thing happened to me, it was a felony if the value was above 300$ at the time. This would definitely ofcourse depend on the cop, and your lawyer if you actually pursued it.

 

Keep in mind this is taking it extremely far and 99.9% wouldn't happen due to the time investment to fully pursue it in court. I am just saying from the legal definition of the term.

In court however, not disclosing the full truth (It basically works, except for.....function) is still classified as lying.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.

"Misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact'" - The existing fact would be that online play is not working at all. The seller omitted this detail to make it more enticing for the buyer.

"The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made." - The buyer obvisouly wouldn't have purchased the product if he had known it was console banned from PSN. This would be a major detail that would indeed be "significant to the decision to be made" as it eliminates the capabilities of truly using the console.

Are you... Trying to use a generic legal dictionary definition of fraud and declaring 'THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO THE COURTS', rather than citing specific legal codes from the region applicable to the OP?

[Revamp]

22 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Are you... Trying to use a generic legal dictionary definition of fraud and declaring 'THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO THE COURTS', rather than citing specific legal codes from the region applicable to the OP?

Sorry, that was indeed taken from my area of legality.

 

This is based upon the laws regarding fraud in England (where the OP's profile says he is from). This is from the gov.uk site which is created by the "Government digital services". I'm not too educated in UK gov sites but I am basing this off the legitimacy within that site under the legal sector.

 

the term “general fraud offence” may also denote a general
deception offence. By this we mean (again, broadly speaking) an offence consisting
in a deception which causes loss to another. Such an offence might or might not
require proof of dishonesty too; but, even if it did, that requirement would be
largely incidental. In most cases it would be the presence or absence of the
element of deception that would determine whether the causing of a particular loss
is or is not criminal.

Again I am no attorney, I was merely providing information based upon my experiences.

With the OP, the seller definitely used deception in the fact he did not disclose the fact that debatably over 50% of the operation of the console was rendered dead.

Also per the gov.uk website, deception is based on dishonesty. Dishonesty being to act without honesty. Lying or being deliberately deceptive.

The seller once again deceived him due to his dishonesty in regards to not disclosing the fact the PS was not fully working to the point of original operation.

 

As I said before though, which does still apply according to the gov.uk website, it would be dependant on the situation if it's classified as criminal or just a "general fraud offence".(last sentence of my quote) Regardless if it is criminal fraud, or petty "general fraud offence" it could still be classified under fraud depending on your lawyer and how hard they push, and what angles, verbiage, and proof they bring forth.

 

Also might I add under the Dishonesty and deception section I came across, not openly stating the full truth (like my example "It is working besides _______") is still classified as lying/dishonesty.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Revamp said:

Sorry, that was indeed taken from my area of legality.

 

This is based upon the laws regarding fraud in England (where the OP's profile says he is from). This is from the gov.uk site which is created by the "Government digital services". I'm not too educated in UK gov sites but I am basing this off the legitimacy within that site under the legal sector.

 

the term “general fraud offence” may also denote a general
deception offence. By this we mean (again, broadly speaking) an offence consisting
in a deception which causes loss to another. Such an offence might or might not
require proof of dishonesty too; but, even if it did, that requirement would be
largely incidental. In most cases it would be the presence or absence of the
element of deception that would determine whether the causing of a particular loss
is or is not criminal.

Again I am no attorney, I was merely providing information based upon my experiences.

With the OP, the seller definitely used deception in the fact he did not disclose the fact that debatably over 50% of the operation of the console was rendered dead.

Also per the gov.uk website, deception is based on dishonesty. Dishonesty being to act without honesty. Lying or being deliberately deceptive.

The seller once again deceived him due to his dishonesty in regards to not disclosing the fact the PS was not fully working to the point of original operation.

 

As I said before though, which does still apply according to the gov.uk website, it would be dependant on the situation if it's classified as criminal or just a "general fraud offence".(last sentence of my quote) Regardless if it is criminal fraud, or petty "general fraud offence" it could still be classified under fraud depending on your lawyer and how hard they push, and what angles, verbiage, and proof they bring forth.

 

Also might I add under the Dishonesty and deception section I came across, not openly stating the full truth (like my example "It is working besides _______") is still classified as lying/dishonesty.

...Why are you again NOT quoting actual CODIFIED LAWS but reference texts?   Do you even know what a 'law' is?

 

You understand that existing criminal codes are all public and available online, right?  How are you unable to find them and instead find tangentially related stuff and then go 'AH HA!  FOUND IT!'  Do you just read it as 'Lawish Looking Stuff' and not comprehend what you're reading or something?

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, benji_ said:

Traded my old xbox one for a ps4 and its fucking console banned.

That means that it was hacked for "Homebrew" for example.

 

https://www.playstation.com/en-nz/get-help/help-library/my-account/grief-reporting/banned-and-suspended-consoles-and-accounts/

 

3 hours ago, benji_ said:

If I change out the hard drive and install the ps4 software on it will it no longer be banned?

No, you can't do nothing about it!

 

What Software Version is installed right now??

[Stefan Payne]

3 hours ago, benji_ said:

hey ive been there, but yeah uk police dont give 2 fucks

No, they only give a fuck about hate speech it seems these days...

 

You should probably think about leaving the country for the US...