Still not clear enough for you? I guess we should let all the aussie members know to go ahead and buy whatever knives they want off the forums, even if they're 95% sure it'll be confiscated, thats ok because they can just file a claim and get their money back, nothing wrong with that right?
Dylan said "once it ships its out of my hands" I know its not technically the same thing but it was still agreed upon. As we now know any emailed agreement is worthless, paypal isn't going to care even if you have emails from the buyer saying "I wont file a claim, I promise to assume all responsibility if its lost/stolen/confiscated". You could just be faking it anyway and send it to paypal.
The buyer is the one trying to IMPORT the knife as has been said many times by many australians in this thread. If I send an illegal knife to AUS customs doesn't come to my house and try to prosecute me. I doubt when customs comes knocking on your door for your illegal importing practices you can just say "i dont know what that is" and they just shrug and go away.
No, its pretty clear to me. I think you're getting confused.
I think this is a failing of all parties involved. That includes paypal, USPS, and Aus customs (maybe).
Perhaps you didn't see my post about using PP personal and literally spelling out to the buyer "I will not be responsible after this leaves the country."
That's not what Dylan said. Its not even close. Given the email it can be construed as nearly anything (including a random aside.)
Don't call misinformation if you're patently unqualified to discuss the information. Actually, if this occured from the other end (hence the disclaimer "In the US") he certainly could press charges. I'm an LEO from Michigan, and we have Canadians come here and suffer crime infrequently. They are still allowed to press charges, as no section of the criminal code states that you must be a US citizen to have victim's rights (LSPDA for example). Our Dept even allows faxed reports as long as they are noratized, the person dosen't even have to file a report in person. They FIRST time that they would HAVE to be face-to-face would be at pre-lim hearing, hence the "trial", where the biggest hurdle he would face would be a $2000 flight for a $400 knife. I'm sure australian law differs, but that's how it would work here.
Really? So you're trying to tell me that if some random guy called you (from say, Oregon or Poland) and said that some guy in MI stole something from him via internet trade forum, you'd rush over and arrest him? Really? I doubt that somehow. If that was the case, I'd be REALLY REALLY surprised.
Yet again, if anything is painful it's not MY knowledge. Sure, they MAY dismiss it out of hand. I never said they wouldn't - I just disputed that he would NOT have to contact an atty to report a crime. That's completely incorrect. Secondly, if ANYONE would be prosecuted it would be George, as AUS can't prosecute a US citizen who is in the US, for somthing that isn't illegal in the US.
They'd dismiss, most likely, because there is no reason no to. Even if Dylan could show that he is 100% correct, why would Aus customs care? As someone mentioned earlier, they're bureaucrats. They're not interested in helping just in enforcing a given statute or law.
When did I say anything about prosecution? I merely said that they're more like to dismiss you given that you're committing a "crime" (or at best abetting someone who is.) I think you really need to stop assuming.
(If it was HERE, in the US) What happened here is that there was a "Larceny by Trick", or a False Representation. George KNEW (or should have known) that there was a high probability that the knife in question is a proscribed item. He failed to properly describe the dangers involved to the shipper, who would NOT be required to know the importation laws, not being bound by them. Additionally, the shipper stated that "Also once it is mailed it's all in the shipping companies hands". This is clearly a disclaimer that shipping is at GEORGE's risk, and by offering assurances and payment he agreed to such terms. George then got a refund on said item when it was seized by AUS Customs, thereby insulating himself from any risk of finantial loss by knowlingly importing a proscribed item.
George knew it was not allowed. George then offered assurances that it was fine, and accepted that the shipper washed his hands of responsability after it was shipped. George then knowlingly got a refund on an item HE knowingly caused to be shipped illegally into the country. Larceny by trick/False Representation.
Sorry Dylan, that's how I would write it if it were here in the US. Paypal really screwed you. You could take them to small claims if that's available locally.
Really? Is this how they practice law in MI?
Larceny by trick:
The unauthorized taking and removal of the Personal Property of another by an individual who intends to permanently deprive the owner of it; a crime against the right of possession.
Larceny generally refers to nonviolent theft. It is a common-law term developed by the royal courts of England in the seventeenth century. In the United States, most jurisdictions have eliminated the crime of Larceny from statutory codes, in favor of a general theft statute.
Firstly, can you prove any of what you claim George was *supposed* to know? BC so far there's no evidence at all to suggest that he did know it.
Second, can you show that George benefited in any way from this? What? No? Hmm....I guess that would suggest something or other
Thirdly, is there any evidence whatsoever that any indemnity, warranty, or promise was made by George and not met? Nope. You can assume whatever you like about the statements made but there's no actual evidence. This is why its a good idea to spell this stuff out rather then hope that the assumption will get you thru.
) but I guess it is down there in the fine print again.
