Fork gators are non-dubious. They are correct in all waysmattcfish wrote:The shocks and fork gators would have made me dubious right off.

Fork gators are non-dubious. They are correct in all waysmattcfish wrote:The shocks and fork gators would have made me dubious right off.
Ah yes! The "seller" is in a bind isn't he? To sell the counterfit R90S for substantially less that a genuine R90S would force him to acknowledge his insufficient judgment and/or knowledge. If he doesn't want to do that, even if only subconsciously, then the problem is fixed by insisting on too much money for the bike.DanielMc wrote:. . . The situation is that my friend, Mal, made the seller an offer that was pretty much in line with what's been discussed here, which was briskly declined. . . .
He could be in a much bigger bind than that...Ken in Oklahoma wrote:Ah yes! The "seller" is in a bind isn't he? To sell the counterfit R90S for substantially less that a genuine R90S would force him to acknowledge his insufficient judgment and/or knowledge. If he doesn't want to do that, even if only subconsciously, then the problem is fixed by insisting on too much money for the bike.DanielMc wrote:. . . The situation is that my friend, Mal, made the seller an offer that was pretty much in line with what's been discussed here, which was briskly declined. . . .
If he manages to sell it for something close to what a real R90S would bring, that would avoid bad judgment remorse. The counterfit bike bought brought a R90S price, so his judgment was on target anyhow. It's not too hard to gloss over the fact that he thought it was a R90S when he bought it. If, on the other hand, he isn't able to sell the bike, that would mean that he hasn't been able to sell the bike YET. He still hasn't erred.
Disclaimer: I don't know the seller. Rather, I created a stereotype and talked about "him".
Ken
Under these circumstances, I believe it would be fraud in the U.S. as well.Rob Frankham wrote:
He could be in a much bigger bind than that...
If he sells the bike as a genuine R90s knowing that it isn't... (even if he doesn't get the full value)... and the new owner dicovers the truth, he's likely to get his ass sued or get prosecuted under criminal law. Up to now he could possibly claim that he didn't know but now its in the public domain and he's been told, he's screwed. It might not be that cut and dried in the US but in the UK the law is all on the side of the purchaser in this sort of situation.
Rob
Usually a matter of "buyer beware" ...Major Softie wrote:... I believe it would be fraud in the U.S. as well.
When you have an ad posted by the seller that describes an item as something it's not, and a witness that testifies that he told the seller the facts and showed him the documentation of those facts, you have a prima facie slam dunk. That is what we were talking about.vanzen@rockerboxer.com wrote:Usually a matter of "buyer beware" ...Major Softie wrote:... I believe it would be fraud in the U.S. as well.
Or, quite literally, then be equipped
to bear the burden of pursuing / proving an allegation of "fraud" in the courts.