Old Woman Has Me By the Balls

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
I guess I just assumed X using Y's credit card implies the representation that the X is Y. That would be a fraudulent purchase regardless of whether Y handed the card to X at some point.

No, you can authorize people to use your card.

Even if the above is incorrect, there is no proof that Wiglaf consented to random Amazon.com purchases. He could tell the cops that he gave her the card to use for car repairs only.

The police might talk to her, but if she says that Wiglaf authorized her to by things on Amazon.com it's he said/she said, and it's a civil matter. I doubt if they would even talk to her.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The police might talk to her, but if she says that Wiglaf authorized her to by things on Amazon.com it's he said/she said, and it's a civil matter. I doubt if they would even talk to her.

Nah, the police would laugh their asses of - the card company on the other hand would use a language that if used here would cause a permaban

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious

No, you can authorize people to use your card.

So I could walk alone into a Wal-Mart right now with a borrowed credit card and say "oh no need for ID, my friend said I could borrow this to buy some new socks," and that would be enough? Of course not.

How would that example be any different from buying socks online with by friend's card, aside from whether I appear to the seller in person?

Originally posted by Kidicious
The police might talk to her, but if she says that Wiglaf authorized her to by things on Amazon.com it's he said/she said, and it's a civil matter. I doubt if they would even talk to her.

A he-said-she-said situation doesn't automatically turn something into a civil matter. It just turns a criminal matter into a criminal matter where the evidence is disputed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
So I can walk into a Wal-Mart right now with a borrowed credit card and say "oh no need for ID, my friend said I could borrow this to buy some new socks," and that would be enough? Of course not.

Yes you can. You might want to trust your friend, get some expressed authority, or as in this case implied authority. The store doesn't have to allow you to use the card, but it's not illegal.

A he-said-she-said situation doesn't automatically turn something into a civil matter. It just turns a criminal matter into a criminal matter where the evidence is disputed.

The evidence is always disputed. There's a reason for civil law. The police can't work these things out. It has to go to court to be settled.

[Dis]

Lol at OP, you can't expect us to believe this story can you?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Dis
Lol at OP, you can't expect us to believe this story can you?

Who cares - it's a perfect opportunity to say that Wiggy is an idiot

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes you can. You might want to trust your friend, get some expressed authority, or as in this case implied authority. The store doesn't have to allow you to use the card, but it's not illegal.

So granted, the store reserves the right to prevent me from using someone else's card because it "might" be stolen, but then what is Amazon.com to do in the same situation? They obviously can't check my ID, so in lieu of that they enter into the transaction under the assumption that the person on the card is buying the socks. I don't see any disclaimers on the site saying it's a-OK to use someone else's card.

Originally posted by Kidicious
The evidence is always disputed. There's a reason for civil law. The police can't work these things out. It has to go to court to be settled.

So it follows then that I could steal your credit card, buy a big-screen TV online, get tracked down through the shipping address, be caught in possession of the TV, and tell the police "oh no no you've got it all wrong, Kid gave me the card to buy a TV to pay off money he owed me," and then this disputed evidence would suddenly turn the purchase into a civil matter, right?

No. I'd be prosecuted and could only use your alleged consent as a defense.

[Lancer]

I go away for a few hours and look what happens...

We delve into the rational.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
So what, precisely, were you elected to do, and by whom?

Sheriff. Morons.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Darius871
So granted, the store reserves the right to prevent me from using someone else's card because it "might" be stolen, but then what is Amazon.com to do in the same situation? They obviously can't check my ID, so in lieu of that they enter into the transaction under the assumption that the person on the card is buying the socks. I don't see any disclaimers on the site saying it's a-OK to use someone else's card.

Well, it's not fraud unless she makes material gain. If Amazon doesn't get payment and she lied about her identity it might be fraud against Amazon. I don't know for sure. If Amazon gets their payment then it's just between Wiglaf and the old lady.

So it follows then that I could steal your credit card, buy a big-screen TV online, get tracked down through the shipping address, be caught in possession of the TV, and tell the police "oh no no you've got it all wrong, Kid gave me the card to buy a TV to pay off money he owed me," and then this disputed evidence would suddenly turn the purchase into a civil matter, right?

No. I'd be prosecuted and could only use your alleged consent as a defense.

But that's not the situation. The situation is that Wiglaf crashed into her and then gave her the card. The fact that he gave her the card looks like 1) He admitted guilt, and 2) That he intends for her to get compensation for her damages by using the card. I'm sure that a police officer would assume that that very well could be the case and definitely would not charge her with a crime.

[BlackCat]

Re: I go away for a few hours and look what happens...

Originally posted by Lancer
We delve into the rational.

Don't smear rationale as long as it makes redicule of Wiggy

[Lancer]

What? Poor hapless ill bred bastard is victimizzzed by a cruel and unusual little old lady whose sole purpose in life was to back into said poor ignorant slob? Now made poorer by the fact that even though she is soon to expire she ripped his anusness off for $350 that he could have better used on drugs ad hookers?

Give the guy a break!

I'm considering appearing as a character witness for him.

[Kidlicious]

[Kidlicious]

Basically Darius, he gave her the card. That means there was some agreement. Maybe (probably) Wiglaf was high on crack, but there's something implied by giving someone your card in that situation. It's not a crime. If someone didn't follow the agreement then that should be worked out in civil court.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But that's not the situation. The situation is that Wiglaf crashed into her and then gave her the card. The fact that he gave her the card looks like 1) He admitted guilt, and 2) That he intends for her to get compensation for her damages by using the card. I'm sure that a police officer would assume that that very well could be the case and definitely would not charge her with a crime.

The old lady doesn't have any evidence that Wiglaf hit her car, nor that he gave her the card, nor that he communicated consent for use of the card. The situation is thus the same as in my analogy.

But fine, let's alter it slightly so that I claim you were compensating me for breaking my chandelier one drunken night, and then I show the police a broken chandelier. Do you really think any experienced investigator - who deals with clever liars day in and day out - would "assume that that very well could be the case" and let me keep my brand new TV? Not a chance.