FOR SALE: Radio Shack Astronaut 8
 

I do not believe there is a 100-year rule that would allow to lose a lawsuit
for representing something as an antique that is less than 100 years old. But
that is beside my point.

Whether or not that is true does not depend on whether or not there is a legal
citation to that effect. I did not miss that day in law school.

You're beinga an idiot. YOu know it, and i know it. Plonk.
"-=jd=-" wrote in message
3...
Dateline "rec.radio.shortwave", Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:23:29 GMT: As it
appeared in message-ID# news:lRDtb.163913$275.506596@attbi_s53, "CW"
appears to have written the following...

The 100 year rule applies to the US. If you were to sell as an item as
an antique knowing it was only 75 years old, the buyer would have
grounds for a lawsuit. They would win. The definition in the dictionary
simply reflects common usage, not law. It just shows how ignorant people
are.

It shows how silly you look making such an indefensible assertion. Why are
there not scores of lawsuits against DMV's for issuing license plates
officially labelling auto's as little as 25 years old "Antiques"?

Then there are the untold gazillion classified ad's selling auto's,
furniture, any-damn-thing in the "Antiques" section.

In any event 'Clinton', why do you feel the need to reply to so many posts
in
such an a-holish manner? Do you have some form of social disorder that the
newsgroup should be aware of?

-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

Your post, as usual, is unimportant. Anytime you state a fact, there are
others who seem to think they can change that by argument. Bitch, moan,
throw your little temper tantrums. It won't change a thing. No go away,
little one.


"N8KDV" wrote in message
...

There are about 360 million people in the US. Three needs to be 360 milion
laws on the books to cover everyones definition. Okay.

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"CW" wrote in message
news:JPPtb.167769$275.515252@attbi_s53...
The only exception, according to the Customs Service is cars. If
anything
is misrepresented when sold, the seller is liable. Customs would have
nothing to do with that other than their law being precedent.

Well, if the issue is misrepresention of an item as an antique, then I
expect the buyer would have to show that the misrepresentation created a
false expectation of an item's market value. In that case, the
marketplace defination of an antique would be relevant.

I don't see how the US Customs defination would apply, unless there was
some Federal beef about import taxes.

Frank Dresser

CW wrote:

Your post, as usual, is unimportant. Anytime you state a fact, there are
others who seem to think they can change that by argument. Bitch, moan,
throw your little temper tantrums. It won't change a thing. No go away,
little one.

'no go away'? 'little one'? ROTFLMAO at someone as presumptuous as you!
You'd better go back and hit the books a little harder and then come back
and we can talk.

As I said before CW, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Get over it.

Steve
Holland, MI

Drake R7, R8 and R8B

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"CW" wrote in message
news:cPRtb.19040$Dw6.87058@attbi_s02...
There are about 360 million people in the US. Three needs to be 360
milion
laws on the books to cover everyones definition. Okay.


If you are saying the US Customs service's definition of antique doesn't
directly apply in most cases, I'm sure we both agree.

We disagree on the need for more laws. Congress has shown rare wisdom
in not much caring about the need for a wider definition of antique.

Frank Dresser

"CW" said:




SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP


Who gives a flying f@#$ about the legal definition of "antique"? We all
understood what the guy selling the radio meant.

Settle down, children!