So I bought a blacklisted Kindle off Craigslist

[krazy4katz]

Originally Posted by PharaohsVizier

And I hear the crickets chirping. These morons just wanted to spiel about how great they think they are. They have no interest in doing the right thing, and if they found themselves in the same position, I doubt they'd take their own advice.

Sorry, but you are wrong about that. I definitely would return it. I know what it is like to have something stolen. And calling people morons doesn't enhance your credibility either.

[PharaohsVizier]

It's easy enough to say it. I could go on and on about how I'm a great person and I donate a lot, I'm completely righteous, slightly religious, and so on. How about you do something about it, like helping the OP out like Robert said?

[krazy4katz]

Originally Posted by PharaohsVizier

It's easy enough to say it. I could go on and on about how I'm a great person and I donate a lot, I'm completely righteous, slightly religious, and so on. How about you do something about it, like helping the OP out like Robert said?

I think I have helped him out. I encouraged him to take the moral high road after making a mistake. Money is not the only value here. This is not from any sense of superiority. Many of us make mistakes. I have done my share. I don't consider myself better than anyone else. That was your assumption, not mine.

[Harmon]

If you go back to message 49 you will see that this guy has already contacted Amazon, which basically washed its hands of the situation. They did not say "it's ours & we want it back." The essence of what they did say is "tough luck, you can either try to deal with the guy who sold it to you or call the cops on him."

So I don't see that he has any moral or legal obligation to do anything more. Is he in possession of stolen goods? Yes, but the true owner (Amazon) knows he has it & doesn't want it back. Should he report it to the cops? Well, what is it that he is supposed to report? Not the original theft because the real victim (Amazon) won't prosecute. What's left to report, "I got semi-screwed on an eBay transaction & I think it's because the seller stole the article but I really have no proof & he did send me the article I paid for."

Basically, he bought what amounts to a defective Kindle because of the implication that it would work on Amazon. But of course the seller never actually said it would - or so I would guess.

In my view, he gets to keep the Kindle, maintain a clear conscience, and ask his best friend to give him a dope slap.

[Esquire1]

There are great deals to be had on craigslist. Of course, that comes with no guarantee and a lesser peace of mind. That's why you pay less. If lacking that peace of mind is worth the money savings, great. But you made your choice knowing those risks.

[krazy4katz]

Well, Harmon, that is a good point.

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by Harmon

If you go back to message 49 you will see that this guy has already contacted Amazon, which basically washed its hands of the situation. They did not say "it's ours & we want it back." The essence of what they did say is "tough luck, you can either try to deal with the guy who sold it to you or call the cops on him."

"Unfortunately, the device you've contacted us about, serial number B008xxx0, has been reported as lost or stolen. As a result, we will not permit new registrations of this Kindle.

If you have concerns about your purchase of this Kindle, please contact the seller or your local law enforcement agency.

Thanks for your understanding."

I fail to see where it says that it was stolen from them. Only that it was reported lost or stolen.

If it was stolen from me, I might call up Amazon to let them know that it was stolen.

Many people think that will help them get their property back. It doesn't though. No company wants to get caught up in legal messes if they can avoid it.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

"

I fail to see where it says that it was stolen from them. Only that it was reported lost or stolen.

If it was stolen from me, I might call up Amazon to let them know that it was stolen.

Many people think that will help them get their property back. It doesn't though. No company wants to get caught up in legal messes if they can avoid it.

True, this could be a kindle stolen from the customer while it was still in the box. Unlikely, I'd say, but possible. (Does anyone, anywhere, keep their new toy in the box? The customer never got it.)

so what's the guy supposed to do, as a practical matter? I guess that he could send it off to Amazon & ask them to return it to the customer. Or maybe he could respond to Amazon & ask that they forward his name & address to the customer. But we both know that Amazon's response will be that it does not provde this service.

The fact that the the if had the kindle in the box tells us that the customer never got it & Amazon made him whole, because they would have had to. So I still say he keeps it.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by lanfearl

The moral dilemma is on the thief.. not him.

You can't have property on a stolen item.

[joblack]

Anyway you might just change the serial number (or to be more precise change the script which reads it).

[SameOldStory]

Originally Posted by joblack

Anyway you might just change the serial number (or to be more precise change the script which reads it).

I'm just guessing, but you might have to change the data in Amazons computers too.


Side story. Not a joke.

A friend of mine's husband came out of a bar with his buddy. A guy walked up to them and asked if they wanted to buy a new TV, still in the box. The first guy said no, and wanted to leave.

The buddy, perhaps with an extra drink or two, said how much.

The seller brought them over to a van, showed them a large TV box, and opened the top to show them that it was a good TV inside.

The buddy talked the seller down to $75 because he figured it was hot. Sold.

By now everybody has it figured out. When the buddy got it home it was an old BLACK and WHITE TV that didnt work.

[elithea]

hello? clearly, guys, OP is just as much of a scammer as his own scammer was, that's made quite clear in his post! leave them to each other and good riddance!

[darknessangel]

Originally Posted by SameOldStory

I'm just guessing, but you might have to change the data in Amazons computers too.


Side story. Not a joke.

A friend of mine's husband came out of a bar with his buddy. A guy walked up to them and asked if they wanted to buy a new TV, still in the box. The first guy said no, and wanted to leave.

The buddy, perhaps with an extra drink or two, said how much.

The seller brought them over to a van, showed them a large TV box, and opened the top to show them that it was a good TV inside.

The buddy talked the seller down to $75 because he figured it was hot. Sold.

By now everybody has it figured out. When the buddy got it home it was an old BLACK and WHITE TV that didnt work.

This scan is OLDER than modern civilization! It's the "cat in the bag" scam. You show them what they want, they pay, you pack it up for them (packing a stone or whatever) and then presto! another human being scamed! XD

[J. Strnad]

Nobody need to reimburse the OP for his misinvested $120. Telling him what is morally correct does not entail the burden of ameliorating his loss. That would be charity, which is optional by definition. No one has any moral responsibility to make the OP financially whole again.

He bought stolen goods. He gambled and lost. IMO, paying $120 for a crippled Kindle is probably punishment enough. If it were me, I'd want to get back at the guy who ripped me off, which is why I would go to the police. No real moral high ground here, just the lust for revenge.

Yes, it would cost more in police time to investigate this scammer, and honestly, they probably wouldn't bother with it. But we're not talking about a single loss. If this guy were caught and went through the judicial system, it could prevent dozens or hundreds of such scams in the future. This is the only one we know about. He might rat out a person who actually stole the device and sold it to him before he passed it on to the OP.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

Nobody need to reimburse the OP for his misinvested $120. Telling him what is morally correct does not entail the burden of ameliorating his loss. That would be charity, which is optional by definition. No one has any moral responsibility to make the OP financially whole again.

Do you mean "follow the law" by "morraly correct"?

Otherwise you should not that other countries have implemented things differently. One way ti implement the laws is that if you buy something and had no reason to suspect it was stolen (good faith) then you own it even if it was stolen. So there are no was you can say that one way is the morally correct one.