Comments on: Buyer Beware: Fraud committed by Bagshop.com and Petticoat Lane scammers

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:16:27 +0000

Thanks for the discussion, by the way.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:16:14 +0000

They messed up. Then they lied. The lie that they would reimburse me for my cost is the fraud. And I didn’t say it rose to the level of a crime, necessarily. It can be fraud, however, and it still is.

By: Letterman's Blackmailer

Letterman's Blackmailer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 19:48:17 +0000

“And it is a fact that THEY messed up and I have to pay for it.”

You prove my point. That’s not fraud. That’s a civil dispute.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 18:02:45 +0000

They didn’t profit but they gained an unfair advantage: they forced me to pay for THEIR mistake. It doesn’t matter that I changed my mind. I followed their procedure and instructions. I was promised that I would not be charged. After I was charged, they admitted their mistake and promised to make good on it. The facts are all that matter. And it is a fact that THEY messed up and I have to pay for it.

By: Letterman's Blackmailer

Letterman's Blackmailer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 16:30:33 +0000

“No, I did not make an error. I ordered a bag through proper channels”

Ordering something you don’t want is an error whether you admit it or not. They don’t explicitly grant any right to cancel any order in their terms of service. A right to cancel is only implied. It depends on what the messages are during the ordering process and I have no way of knowing that or any inclination to order a purse.

“…perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage”

How did they profit? They merely recouped some of their loss. I doubt you could even win a hypothetical civil case based on this information, let alone show any kind of fraud.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:19:47 +0000

fraud
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:16:46 +0000

No, I did not make an error. I ordered a bag through proper channels. I canceled the order through proper channels. I got confirmation that it was canceled. There was no error on my part, and my attempt to purchase a bag from bagshop.com was not a license for them to steal from me.

They made the mistake, and I was kind enough to immediately send the bag back to them. I even fronted the money for the shipping, with the acknowledgment from them that they made an error, and a promise to reimburse me for the cost to correct THEIR error.

The fraud is within them promising to refund all of my money and not doing so. They gave me their word and it is the right thing to do. To not pay the money that is due to me is fraud and theft, plain and simple. We’ve gone far past the point of them claiming a “mistake.”

By: Letterman's Blackmailer

Letterman's Blackmailer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:54:29 +0000

You also made an error in ordering a bag you didn’t want, which got the ball rolling. It’s not like they sent it to you unsolicited. Like I said, you have a right to not like their service or terms and complain about them. It does not rise to the level of fraud. You might have a good hypothetical civil case against them, but it’s just that. A civil dispute, not fraud.

By: Tracy Coenen

Tracy Coenen — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:03:41 +0000

It doesn’t matter what their published shipping terms were. This was not “a return”. They charged me and mailed out the bag in error. Their error. There is NO WAY I should have to pay any shipping charges to correct their mistake.

This absolutely is fraud and theft as the company should be willing to live up to the promises of their employees. If the employee was mistaken, why must I pay the cost for that mistake? I had no control over that employee’s actions. Just like I had no control over the company charging my credit card and shipping out a bag on an order that was properly canceled and even CONFIRMED canceled by their owner.

By: Letterman's Blackmailer

Letterman's Blackmailer — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:00:10 +0000

An employee’s erroneous promise to refund the shipping charge does not constitute fraud. It constitutes a mistake on the part of that person. They have lived up to their published shipping terms.

“We deduct for shipping charges on all returns.”

http://www.bagshop.com/orderfaq.php

You may not like the published terms and you have every right to complain about those terms and/or your specific experience, but calling it fraud is inaccurate and seems to be in bad faith. It undercuts the credibility of many of your other blog items that point out legitimate fraud (pun intended).