Judge Judy vs Ebay seller

yankeesfan

Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2004
5,923
1
71
That girl is hot. I hate scam artists. It sounds like the two women were stupid and didn't read all the way through the listing, though.

Edit: Maybe not on the last sentence.
 

jamesbond007

Diamond Member
Dec 21, 2000
5,280
0
71
Absolutely love it! It should be illegal to pull such crap ads on eBay anyways.

I also enjoyed the YouTube comment:
"hot chick and her hot milf mom always win. fat chicks never win."

:D
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
Judge Judy seemed to jump to a decision pretty darn fast there...

But ya, 'pictures' of an item with a description of the actual item ARE a scam. If the auction includes a description of pictures of the item, then it is for pictures of the item. If an auction includes a description of the actual item, then I don't care what the auction says elsewhere, it's intent is to defraud the customer.


Although, I really think things like 'xbox' (cardboard box with X written on it) should be allowed. Why? Because it's hilarious for the rest of us. As long as it is described properly, it should be allowed.. There's no 'dumbass protection' on the Internet.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
The daughter is smoking... and i almost crapped my pants when judge judy started screaming at that scammer :eek: (had my headphones on).
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: InverseOfNeo
$5,000!!! :eek:

The way those shows usually work, they have a set amount of money ("prize fund") for each case. The winner gets their judgment out of that fund, and then they split the difference. So if the prize fund is $5000 and it's a $1000 judgment for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff gets $3000 and the defendant gets $2000.

I assume in Judge Judy's case the prize fund is $5000 and she didn't want the scammer to get any of it.

In any event, the fat bitch didn't have to pay anything. Hopefully the IRS was watching though. :)
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
Originally posted by: brxndxn
Judge Judy seemed to jump to a decision pretty darn fast there...

But ya, 'pictures' of an item with a description of the actual item ARE a scam. If the auction includes a description of pictures of the item, then it is for pictures of the item. If an auction includes a description of the actual item, then I don't care what the auction says elsewhere, it's intent is to defraud the customer.


Although, I really think things like 'xbox' (cardboard box with X written on it) should be allowed. Why? Because it's hilarious for the rest of us. As long as it is described properly, it should be allowed.. There's no 'dumbass protection' on the Internet.

I am not sure how you make the distinction. You either are for scams or you are not.
 

Dunbar

Platinum Member
Feb 19, 2001
2,041
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
I assume in Judge Judy's case the prize fund is $5000 and she didn't want the scammer to get any of it.

I highly doubt that, I saw the 60 minutes interview with Judge Judy and they said the show pays the judgement (rather than the defendant). Both parties essentially agree to drop the case in civil court and submit to binding arbitration on the show.

I Tivo JJ every day, it's my guilty pleasure. I don't really think the courts should be the moral police but it sure makes for entertaining television watching her rip people apart!
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: Dunbar
Originally posted by: mugs
I assume in Judge Judy's case the prize fund is $5000 and she didn't want the scammer to get any of it.

I highly doubt that, I saw the 60 minutes interview with Judge Judy and they said the show pays the judgement (rather than the defendant). Both parties essentially agree to drop the case in civil court and submit to binding arbitration on the show.

I Tivo JJ every day, it's my guilty pleasure. I don't really think the courts should be the moral police but it sure makes for entertaining television watching her rip people apart!

Did you read my post? :confused: That's what I said.
 

Dunbar

Platinum Member
Feb 19, 2001
2,041
0
0
Originally posted by: mugs
Did you read my post? :confused: That's what I said.

I was disagreeing about the part where they split the remaining money left after the judgment. Unless you can link to proof of that I have a hard time believing it.
 

UpgradeFailure

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,672
0
0
Originally posted by: Dunbar
Originally posted by: mugs
I assume in Judge Judy's case the prize fund is $5000 and she didn't want the scammer to get any of it.

I highly doubt that, I saw the 60 minutes interview with Judge Judy and they said the show pays the judgement (rather than the defendant). Both parties essentially agree to drop the case in civil court and submit to binding arbitration on the show.

I Tivo JJ every day, it's my guilty pleasure. I don't really think the courts should be the moral police but it sure makes for entertaining television watching her rip people apart!

Yeah, like mugs said, the show paid the judgement, but since she gave out the full 5k, there was none left over for the scammer to get. (example is if she just awarded the lady 500 dollars, they would split the left over from the 5 grand per episode pot). So the lady isn't out any money, but she doesn't gain anything after suffering in front of 10 million people either.

 

UpgradeFailure

Golden Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,672
0
0
Originally posted by: Dunbar
Originally posted by: mugs
Did you read my post? :confused: That's what I said.

I was disagreeing about the part where they split the remaining money left after the judgment. Unless you can link to proof of that I have a hard time believing it.

It's in the credits after the show
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Originally posted by: Dunbar
Originally posted by: mugs
Did you read my post? :confused: That's what I said.

I was disagreeing about the part where they split the remaining money left after the judgment. Unless you can link to proof of that I have a hard time believing it.

Watch the end credits. Not sure if Judge Judy works that way, but I know other similar shows do.

Also, Wikipedia says it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Judy
The award for each judgment is paid by the producers of the show from a fund reserved for each case. The remainder of the fund is split between the parties for a particular case.

Not that Wikipedia is necessarily right.