Tuesday, September 9, 2008

cash4gold round 3

so i finally heard back from cash4gold regarding my gold dust submission. as expected, they sent me a pretty dry rejection letter (fig. a). not as expected, they also sent me a "purchase invoice" that contains this classic description of my submission: "all items are not real-no value" (fig. b).


(fig. a: the rejection letter. by the way, nice signature, jeff. it looks like you got one letter into your last name then fell off a cliff.)



(fig. b: the backhandedly sassy "purchase invoice." i continue to use the quotes, because it can hardly be called a purchase invoice if nothing's being purchased, right?)


anyway, so despite what cash4gold and its scam artist ceo jeff aronson are hoping, this is obviously not over. in case you can't enlarge the rejection letter enough to read it, here's the important line for my purposes: "You may also request a return by emailing info@cash4gold.com."

done:






so that's it for now. there's not really much else to do but sit back and wait a little bit longer. i mean, worst case scenario, they disregard my email and just mail my gravel back, and i tell them some's missing and demand like 19 cents in compensation for the loss.

i don't want to jinx anything, but if i somehow, miraculously end up getting a check from them - in any amount - i'm framing it on the spot. i know you know i'm not kidding.

[Round 1, 2]

10 comments:

Jon Q. Law said...

Hi. This might be mail fraud. Bye.

joe dude said...

dear mr. law,

i don't want to call your obviously expansive legal knowledge into question.

i'll just say that i'd be delighted to hear you explain how there could be fraud without misrepresentation or detrimental reliance.

looking forward to it!

your pal,

jd

Matt said...

Wow, that sounds impressive! What is detrimental reliance?

joe dude said...

thanks!

unfortunately, i have no idea what it means. i just copied and pasted it from a law.com message board.

Matt said...

Oh, your welcome!

Russell said...

My understanding is that detrimental reliance is when you rely on something that is detrimental. Hopefully that will put an end to any more questions.

Jon Q. Law said...

I'll just refer you to 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C.A. § 1342 and leave it at that since I'm not your attorney. If you read those and still want to have your fun, then be my guest.

joe dude said...

russell,

you're hired.


john q,

you seem like a nice enough guy, and i appreciate your concern and your research.

to paraphrase you, though, since you aren't my attorney, i'll just refer you to the following and leave it at that:

nothing was misrepresented; without misrepresentation there's no fraud; without fraud there's no issue with fictitious names or addresses.

thanks again - seriously - and do stop by again soon.

b-boy stance guy said...

ooooooooh, snap you.

"hold me back son"

joe dude said...

easy, standeeman