stallownt, judge judy owns scam artist Options

[jayi12-15psi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWfshl8_wSM

[97lestyousay]

She got what she deserved. I personally can't stand
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.

[Batman722]

She got what she deserved. I personally can't stand
Judge Judy though. She has brains in her finger.

I agree with you Randy, I would smack the crap out of JJ if she ever talked to me like that. I got brains, right here

then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware

[jgreening]

then again, if the ad says it's for a photo, then you're buying a photo...buyer beware

You probably just mean that people need to be careful which is certainly true. However, "buyer beware" or "caveat emptor" comes from the common law indicating that so long as the seller does not misrepresent something, the buyer has no legal rememdy. That is not true today as most (if not all) states have statutes which prohibit deceptive business practices. These statutes pre-empt the common law. It does not matter that the ad says the auction is for a photo. It is deceptive in that the intent was to get people's money because potential buyers might THINK it was a real phone. The intent of the advertiser is what is important. Although I think JJ is a prima dona of the worst sort, she got this one right.

As for the question above regarding the $5000 judgement, I presume that is the maximum allowed in small claims court in the applicable state. The plaintiff would have been entitled to more than the value spent due to the defamation issue as the seller had falsly reported feedback.