CompUSA sells empty box, won’t refund customer

[NBVegita]

Yeah I managed 2 retail stores to put myself through college. The key is to make the customer happy. And we'd do what ever it took. Even if we knew they were scamming us, because that item, or items was not worth the bad publicity we would get otherwise.

 

It was wretched customer service.

[LiDDiS]

He should poop into the box and return it again

[»freakmonger]

He should just go to the media. Going to court or whatever would cost way too much time & money.

[rootbear75]

Here is a question. If the box was sealed (or if the people at CompUSA claim that it was a sealed box) than the customer would have no reason to check the merchandise as they would believe a sealed box to have everything in it. Is it the customers fault that they did not check a sealed box? Also, if the item was defective (say the lense was cracked) would CompUSA have done anything then? This is a case of terrible customer service.

 

Not very familiar with liquidation sales though. I am guessing everything is on clearance for cheap? And to me, all sales final does not mean if we sold you something defective you are out of luck (missing parts being a defective reason). I guess that is what CompUSA thinks it means?

thats what I'm thinking.

If CompUSA sells something and tell the customer clearly, "ALL SALES FINAL," then the customer is just out of luck. Because they released themselves of all liability upon selling the camera.

[Hoch]

I know, and I'm sorry. I said I wouldn't but I am. The simple reason

being I am rather enjoying this. Also, as it is Friday and I only work

half a day on Friday's, I have some extra time before shabbat.

 

Note: this will be a very long post. But the short story is (yet again):

there are two standards of proof in civil and criminal laws and the

two are not interchangeable. Therefore, it is inherently and funda-

mentally wrong to characterise the standard of proof in a civil case

as placing a burden on the claimant/plaintiff beyond a reasonable

doubt.

 

If anything NBVegita I urge to read the comments that were given to

me by a colleague of mine. It follows towards the end of my comments

and is the coloured text.

 

Grab a tea, or a gl!@#$%^&* of Laphroaig whiskey.

 

...

 

I reiterate the position as made out in posts 4, 7, and 12.

 

What I think you miss is that I've never once stated that in a civil

case there NEED be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' date=' in fact

I quite implicitly said that in all criminal cases there need not be.

I think you are more picking on the literal meaning of my syntax.[/quote']

As regard to this quote there are two issues. The first is the statement

of using beyond a reasonable doubt in conjunction with this particular

matter, and the second is the so-called implicit statement that in all crim-

inal cases there need not be a required standard of proof of beyond a

reasonable doubt.

 

As to the first matter:

 

By law if he could prove beyond a reasonable doubt...

Quite clearly this statement was made in reference to the present matter' date='

which would be governed by civil law standards. Therefore on that basis,

having to prove directly imports such evidence as is necessary to show the

trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. For reasons mentioned in posts 4, 7

and 12 this is false. The civil standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

As to the second matter:

 

To prove your case, criminal or other, the evidence you present

in defence of your case must be found to be accurate and true beyond a rea-

sonable doubt, to a judge or jury of your peers.

This is an explicit, not implicit statement, of the importation of the criminal

standard of proof. In the absence of the preceding sentence, the quote

speaks for itself.

 

In a case' date=' civil or criminal, if the defending party has overwhelming evidence

in their defence, the plaintiff would have to produce near infalable evidence

proving his claim to be more credible then the defence. In essence the evi-

dence produce by the prosecution would be statistically, of course depending

on the judge, 85-100% true, thus falling it in the realm that the evidence would

need to be so severe as to be categorized as beyond a reasonable doubt.[/quote']

This paragraph is wrong for two very important reasons. Firstly, it confuses the

civil and criminal standard (again). In a criminal case all a defendant has to

do is adduce evidence which raises a suspicion of doubt on the evidence adduced

by the prosecution. It goes without saying, that irrespective of the defence evi-

dence, if the prosecution cannot satisfy the trier of fact, beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant committed the offence of which he is charged, the

prosecution's case fails. Again, any evidence adduced by the defendant merely

mitigates the prosecution's evidence.

 

Secondly, in a civil case all the trier of fact has to be satisfied with is that they

think it more probably than not that the claimant has succeeded in discharging

his burden. Once accomplished, the claimant wins his case, but any action

in damages or costs can be reduced on account.

 

The only point I've been trying to make is that in THIS case' date=' the plaintiff would

have to produce evidence that would fall into, legally, the category of beyond

reasonable doubt, to win a case against a defendant with such strong evidence

to support their claim. by syntax you can fall back on the fact that no he does

not have to produce "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt", as that is required

in nothing more than severe criminal cases , but in reality you would have to pro-

vide evidence that is more credible and solid that the defendant, who in this case

can produce evidence that could most likely fall withing your criminal bounds of

evidence.[/quote']

I am noticing a trend here. This really is the gist of the situation, but the civil

standard of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the criminal standard

of proof. It has nothing to do with syntax or misunderstanding or anything else.

Using the words "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the context of a civil case is

wrong. Carefully re-read post 12. You will find the essence of those words in ev-

ery single law of evidence book.

 

Beyond a reasonalbe doubt is not a scale you can base a case on. Criminal cases

have been ruled upon with evidence as simple as an eye witness and a bad alibi' date='

and criminal cases have been lost with evidence that is all but !@#$%^&*ing. The same

can be said for civil cases. If you really look at it the way you are presenting it, be-

ing beyond a reasonable doubt is not a scale we can really measure, every case,

be it criminal or civil, is really just about who has more credible evidence. In a civil

court you need just need to convince a judge, where as in a criminal court you need

convince a jury.[/quote']

I only quoted this portion because quite frankly the rest of the paragraph is absolute

rubbish. As I noted in post #12 there are two principles burdens (legal and eviden-

tial). A 'high' standard of proof is required in criminal cases to discharge the legal

burden. This is done by adducing sufficient evidence to convince the trier of fact that

the defendant is guilty of the offence of which he is charged. In a civil case, the claim-

ant discharges the legal burden if he can adduce such evidence that the trier of fact

thinks that it is more probably than not, then his case succeeds.

 

This is the law of evidence. It is not amenable, it cannot be interpreted in any other

way. There is a two stage process and depending on the case, i.e. civil or criminal

there are different approaches which must be taken in order to discharge the pro-

cess.

 

I have been debating one particular theoretical evidential severity pertaining to a

singular civil lawsuit' date=' whilst hoch has been debating the theoretical evidential se-

verity of criminal vs civil lawsuits.[/quote']

This is not a theoretical position. This is the state of the law of evidence. If you

do not accept it, then there is nothing I can do about it. That said, as a practising

barrister I have never come across an individual that has not. I should think that

is impossible, as he would surely be laughed out of court

 

In closing we have been debating two separate subjects' date=' unless Hoch's ultimate

arguement is that in no civil case, including the one I have mentioned, would you

need to produce evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt". In which I would argue

that you would need to produce, due to the degree of evidence admissable by the

defence, evidence that would need to be near infallable, as the evidence by the de-

fence is also near infalable, and thus would fall into needing such severe evidence

as could be classified "beyond a reasonable doubt".[/quote']

I am really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I do not want to

come more arrogant than I already have. But, I find it extremely difficult that

you seem quite incapable of understanding such a simple concept as a standard

of proof. I really do.

 

At first glance you seem to concede that beyond reasonable doubt has no place

in a civil case. But then you trip yourself up again by going on about 'infallible' this

and 'severe evidence' that. But let me take this point and shed some light on it.

If we were to accept what you wrote as being true, then essentially you would

have the position whereby the evidence adduced by the defendant mitigates

or knocks down the evidence adduced by the claimant. In which case, there is

a trade off. It follows that if the defendant's evidence is, shall I say, stronger,

but of course we never use such a word in practise, but more convincing than

the claimant's, then the claimant has failed to discharge his standard of proof,

which, again, is on the balance of probabilities. Therefore, the defendant wins

and will claim for costs. Nonetheless, the claimant's burden is evidence not be-

yond a reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities or preponderance

of evidence.

 

Of course I don't see the difference between stating' date=' specially on ssforum:

 

To win the case the plaintiff would need to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt;

 

vs

 

The plaintiff, due to the fact that the defendant can produced such evidence

as to nearly absolve himself of all legal obligation in said matter, must pro-

duce evidence that supercedes the nearly infalable evidence produced by the

defendant; so that if the plaintiff cannot produce stalwart enough evidence,

that can be proved less falable than the nearly infalable evidence of the de-

fendant, he cannot win a civil lawsuit against said defendant.

 

I sincerly hope that is not what this debate has been about.[/quote']

In order to discharge the legal burden in a civil case the claimant/plaintiff needs

to adduce such evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, the trier of fact

thinks that it is more probable than not.

 

You keep viewing this from the wrong angles. And quite frankly I simply can-

not understand why. You clearly have some knowledge, but you're mixing up

concepts and misapplying them. I can only suggest that you thoroughly read

up on the subject. But whilst doing so read on admissibility of evidence, be-

cause not everything a claimant/defendant seeks to adduce will be admissible.

Also, you need to make distinction between the 'weight' attached to particular

evidence and the standard of proof. The law of evidence is complicated, but

once you understand the basic concepts it is smooth sailing!

 

As to the what this debate is all about, it is precisely about not confusing the

criminal standard of proof, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt with the civil stan-

dard of proof, i.e. balance of probabilities or preponderance of doubt. This is

absolutely fundamental in understanding not only the law of evidence but how

these two systems of law function.

 

Finally, and rather embarr!@#$%^&*ingly (I owe my colleague a pint now), I had an

American law trained colleague of mine (qualified to practise in New York,

California and Arizona) read over some of your earlier comments. Thus, if

you still do not accept what I wrote, then at the very least read his comments

very carefully. His comments appear in blue and yours in green.

 

 

-Hoch

 

The writing is mostly wrong, especially on it's key points.

 

"To prove your case, criminal or other, the evidence you present in defence of your case must be found to be accurate and true beyond a reasonable doubt, to a judge or jury of your peers."

 

This is wrong in several respects. Under US law, there are different standards of proof for civil and criminal. Here, the writer misstates that "the evidence you present ...must be found to be accurate and true beyond a reasonable doubt." In a criminal action, the standard is reasonable doubt, but that standard applies only to "guilt," not to particular pieces of evidence as the writer implies. The jury is instructed to look at all of the evidence and determine whether the Defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A criminal jury makes no findings as to the accuracy of any particular piece of evidence.

 

And the standard is completely different for a civil case. A civil Plaintiff must prove his case by a "preponderance of evidence." That simply means that, after both sides present their evidence, a jury has to find that a Plaintiff's case is more likely true than not. Imagine of the scales of justice. If they tip, even slightly, in favor of Plaintiff, Plaintiff wins. Since the burden in on Plaintiff, it has to tip at least a little in his favor. If it was evenly balanced (i.e. 50/50), than the Defendant wins because the Plaintiff has not met his burden.

 

"In the US we even have a 3rd level of "proof" something like clear and convincing evidence. In the United states there is no structure as to which type of suit requires which burden of proof."

 

The first sentence is correct, the second is completely wrong. All civil suits are judged on a preponderance of evidence standard. But in certain cases, such as where Plaintiff is seeking punitive damages (damages to punish the Defendant in addition to damages given to make the Plaintiff whole), a "clear and convincing evidence" standard is applied. This is a heightened burden. However, the places where the heightened standard apply are clearly defined, and not random as the writer implies.

 

"The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If the plaintiff cannot present solid evidence, thus meaning evidence that can be shown as true without reasonable doubt, he has no case."

 

This is not an accurate statement of the burden on Plaintiff. Suppose, in the example given, the seller has no video evidence and the employee who sold the item no longer works there and can't be found. The only evidence presented is that of the purchaser and his witness. The store can still argue that Plaintiff's theory does not make sense (he would have known by the lack of weight that the box was empty). But the Plaintiff can win under that fact pattern. Is there doubt? yes. Is that doubt reasonable? Yes. But that's not the legal standard in a civil case - Plaintiff has to make his case by a preponderance of the evidence and has done so under these facts.

 

"Finally if the defendant can provide reasonable doubt that your evidence is either inaccurate or false, then the case is won by the defendant."

 

This is sort of accurate, although the terms are not correct. the term "reasonable doubt" is not used in US civil cases at all. If the writer is getting at the point that if the Defendant shows his version of events to be more likely true than Plaintiff's, Defendant wins; then that is accurate but it is not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

The writer frames the issue as if Defendant has to prove something vis-a-vis Plaintiff. Again, this is sort of true, but the legal burden on proving the case is on Plaintiff. In the example used, the Defendant does not have to prove that there was a camera in the box at shipping, he only has to convince the jury that the Plaintiff hasn't proved his point - that it was shipped empty. Kind of a fine distinction. (In real life, this is not so neat and clean, especially when dealing with juries).

 

Finally, the writer says basically that the Plaintiff "can't bring a suit." Not sure if they are just taking a verbal shortcut, but that isn't true at all. Before filing a suit, a Plaintiff has to investigate to make sure they have a plausible claim. Having a claimant say that they got an empty box is enough to file. Having an independent witness helps, but isn't legally required. So the bar is set pretty low on the ability to file in the first place. But that doesn't say anything about who would win. Without knowing more facts, its hard to judge who would win. Was this bought off the shelf? The writer could be correct that there could be video evidence. And did no one notice that there was no weight to the box? In general, I'd favor the Defense in a situation like this, but couldn't give a sold opinion without knowing more about it.

 

DVD

[NBVegita]

As for the verbal shortcut, that is true, I don't mean that he could not present a case in court, as he does have the ability to do so. By stating that he does not have a case I was implying that he does not have near the evidence to win the case.

 

Yet again I understand exactly what you are saying. Basically you are taking something I am using in a broad cir!@#$%^&*stance and picking on the literal meaning.

 

By stating that in this case the plaintiff would need evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" I am not saying that his case requires evidence as critical as the legal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I am trying to imply that the plaintiff needs to produce evidence that a judge would deem more credible than the evidence the defence would be able to produce. From experience working in retail management, the evidence a retail location can produce in said situation would be overwhelming, thus in order for the plaintiff to produce evidence more credible than the defendant, it would fall into the degree of evidence needed to convict most criminal cases. Maybe if I phrase it like this, the burden of evidence would not need to be beyond a reasonable doubt, moreso the degree of evidence would have to be that severe. EDIT: By this I do not mean that the evidence would have to be proven true, to a judge or jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I don't misunderstand the burden of proof, in actuality, even in criminal cases, the evidence doesn't have to be beyond a reasonable doubt, as you just need to convince a jury of your peers that you are in the right or wrong. Now in a civil case a judge might be more liable to make a ruling based on inconclusive evidence, or a closer margin on your balance of evidence. In a criminal case, a minor case will be easier to rule upon than a major criminal case.

 

In all reality, and I am sure you will agree, all civil and criminal cases are settled on a balance of evidence, the degree to which the balance must tip is adjusted per case, per judge, per jury. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not an applicable scale of evidence in any case. Jury's are made of people, and people are who make the decisions. They might be told that they must not be able to find reasonable doubt, but that is the same as a judge ordering the jury to disregard a statement. Is it possible that the jury may make their ruling disregarding the statement? Sure it's possible. Is it likely that the jury will disregard the statement? Not very. Precisely why a lawyer makes said statement fully planning to revoke it or have it disregarded.

 

I feel beyond a reasonable doubt is a sad legal term, with no applicable standing. If I am being criticized for using it on a gaming forum beyond the formal legal context, well then so be it.

 

Also this is a shame that this has happened over the forum as I feel many things have been misinterpereted that I have posted, or maybe I have misinterepereted what I have meant in certain areas, such things would not happen in a discussion. I agree thoughroughly with much you have posted.

Edited June 8, 2007 by NBVegita

[Samapico]

Longest... post... ever... (non-spammy that is)

[sil]

I like this thread.

[rootbear75]

Hoch is a Jew... ZOMG!

[Greased_Lightning]

Hoch is a Jew... ZOMG!

 

 

When i first read that I was like then i almost died of laughter. Then I felt a bit ashamed and then laughed again. Funny stuff.

[Gravitron]

I'm completely appalled by Hoch being jewish...and never telling moi, the other SubSpace Jewish Person about it.

 

Where's the brotherly love, man?

 

Also, <3 Hoch, if you were a woman I would propose.

Grinding legalities get me hot.

Meh, any intellectual stimuli get me hot really.

 

 

And Vegita, just....sigh.

[Hoch]

You know, I give up. Even after an analysis and explanation by two

professional barristers, you still tote the same line. What was written

is the law and how it is done in practice. There are no shortcuts. Fail-

ure to meet these standards is detrimental to a case. You cannot p!@#$%^&*

'go'.

 

End of story.

 

-Hoch

[Top_Gun]

I would think they would do whatever it takes to make him happy. A happy customer comes back and tells people.

[Greased_Lightning]

Whereas an unhappy customer comes back and shoots people.

 

Think about it, CompUSA. Do you really want that on your conscious? I know you're reading this.

[Choose Profile]

Here is a question. If the box was sealed (or if the people at CompUSA claim that it was a sealed box) than the customer would have no reason to check the merchandise as they would believe a sealed box to have everything in it. Is it the customers fault that they did not check a sealed box? Also, if the item was defective (say the lense was cracked) would CompUSA have done anything then? This is a case of terrible customer service.

 

Not very familiar with liquidation sales though. I am guessing everything is on clearance for cheap? And to me, all sales final does not mean if we sold you something defective you are out of luck (missing parts being a defective reason). I guess that is what CompUSA thinks it means?

thats what I'm thinking.

If CompUSA sells something and tell the customer clearly, "ALL SALES FINAL," then the customer is just out of luck. Because they released themselves of all liability upon selling the camera.

 

 

As i see it in regaurds to the the clearance being "ALL SALES FINAL," he bought a camera which wasnt given to him, he didnt buy the box. I could see a point if the camera was defective, but to not even have a camera in the box? that doesnt make sense. He paid the $200-300 for a CAMERA, not a CAMERA BOX

[candygirl]

I think Ghetto D works for them?

[rootbear75]

I'm completely appalled by Hoch being jewish...and never telling moi, the other SubSpace Jewish Person about it.

im the OTHER jew grav... you are THE jew

 

As i see it in regaurds to the the clearance being "ALL SALES FINAL," he bought a camera which wasnt given to him, he didnt buy the box. I could see a point if the camera was defective, but to not even have a camera in the box? that doesnt make sense. He paid the $200-300 for a CAMERA, not a CAMERA BOX

well technically, the UPC/barcode was on the "box" not the camera, so a rep COULD say that he bought the box.

This goes back to bet i made a while ago.

I bet a friend that my parents would take out a certain box of stuff when they went out to calif.

(this after repeated times of forgetting it)

he bet they wouldn't.

well, they ended up taking the stuff INSIDE of the box, and not the box.

my friend refused to pay up cause i had said the "box" and not the "stuff inside of the box"

 

seems to me that compUSA thinks that he bought the "box" and whatever happened to be inside of it