Gary, Your legal education might need a "bit" of sharpening. Disputes decided on "Judge Judy" or any other like TV show cannot be used as precedent in any other case. Only cases which are decided in an appellate court or above can be used as precedent in other cases. Further still, courts are only bound by the decisions of appellate and above courts in their own state or the US Supreme Court. For example, a case decided in a California Appellate Court are binding on lower courts in California but not on any courts in say Idaho.

As a TV show, the parties must agree to be bound by the terms of a agreement before the matter will be heard by Judy. In the legal world would be considered a "binding aribtration" agreement. In these situations, in place of taking the matter to court, the parties agree to have the matter heard before a nuetral thrid party arbitrator. While anyone who the parties agree to have as an arbitrator can serve in that capacity, many times arbitrators are retired judges. The arbitrator hears both sides and renders a decsion that parties have previously agreed to be bound to adhere to follow. On this TV show...Judy is the arbitrator.

I would think that any one who would invoke this case as precedent in a real court matter would receive -- if the judge was in a good mood -- a generous "That's nice" from the court in response to using this matter as a basis to recover money.

I watched the show and never did see where the seller said that it was listed as photos in which case she was legally correct (although still a moral scumbag)The judges decision was appropriate in my mind Though if it said in fine print you are getting photos ,then buyer beware.Always read all the fine print and especially the sellers feedback where this sale may never have been completed as there were others that had been scammed by these people

Thanks for your article on the Judge Judy segment. I saw it yesterday. A husband-wife team of scammers were claiming that they were selling only a photo of a cellphone, not the actual cellphone. The vendor's wife was shown to be a pathological liar. The husband didn't bother to show up and face the music.
Incidentally, I was told of this scam by a friend of mine a few months ago. The vendor claimed the ad was for a photo of a cell phone. Judge Judy responded that the ad mentioned weight of 4 ounces, therefore the ad misrepresented the goods as a photo is only 1 ounce.

the 4.90 oz. weight was on the manufacturers spec sheet list in the auction. I still say that if it says somewhere in the auction that what you get is the photo,then she was not legally wrong only morally . As for the husband ,,though his phone comment to the buyer of "thanks for the shopping spree" was as morally wrong as the auction itself,the auction was his wifes leaving him unresponsibleand probably was smart enough to not air his face in front of 10 million people,I dont understand how anyone would go on tv with this type action .I would have refunded the $ and tried an easier mark.after all it was only paper

Lesson of the day for future eBayers, always check the seller's feedback before proceeding to make the purchase.

http://www.squidoo.com/ceilingfanbayebay/

Great story!But here's the thing - it points out a couple of severe flaws that eBay has never bothered to correct - the main one of which is not requiring very much verification for the seller. While they act like Switzerland and claim to be a "neutral venue" whenever the heat is on, eBay needs to step up to the plate and take some steps to insure that the seller is who they claim to be.

I know nothing about the law, and have only seen commercials for the Judge Judy show - I hate the whole tv court drama junk, and consider them to be just a step above Jerry Springer shows. But, it is still nice to see someone take the matter to court.

Many buyers might not know this, but they can also file a complaint against their poor seller with the sheriff dept of where the seller is located (if they know). The local law doesn't want scammers and the usbsequent bad publicity any more than anyone else does, and they'll look into your complaints.

Meanwhile, eBay is still very much a "buyer beware" deal. And for what it is worth, I totally agree that eBay should remove every negative that photo seller left for others.

And buyers still need to READ the listings before bidding - no amount of seller verification will fix "stupid"!

Hooray for Judge Judy...and I love Ebay. Having said that ,I did not know that court rulings (on TV shows) constitue "case Law" . Although I thoroughly (almost 99%) of the time with Judge Judy and all of the other Judges who sit on the Bench TV shows.

In defense of Ebay....how can Ebay "police" everyone and everything that gets onto their sites. However, I can critize them ,if their handling of the complaints which pour in 24/7 ,are not handled instantly and properly and fairly.

I am thrilled and delighted that small claims court "compalints" are being heard and resolved via TV shows .....be they Ebay, Amazon, Google.ad infinitum.....it will keep them all on their toes and more vigilant and responsive to sams, scammers.....

On one hand I think that eBay should help put a stop to these type of sellers, but on the other hand buyers need to have some sort of responsibility. Selling on eBay for 7 years, I've had hundreds of buyers who failed to read any part of the listing and get upset about a feature/flaw/etc. in a product that was clearly described.

These "scammers" (at least all that I've seen) always state in the auction that you are bidding on a "list" or a "photo" or something. They almost always use a stock photo too. eBay should at least educate buyers about these type of auctions and buyers should at least read the listing.
www.firemeg.com

First of all, burying a disclosure somewhere way down in the eBay listing that what's being sold is a photo of a cellphone does not let the seller off the hook for defraud. The main listing in large print, which shows up on the "hit list" when you run a search for an eBay item you're looking for, did not say "Photo of cell phone." Rather, it listed the item as a cell phone. Clearly, the intention of the seller was to make a bidder part with a couple of hundred dollars and send a color copy of a photo of a cell phone which cost the seller under a dollar to fabricate. The disclaimer in fine print, way down in the listing requiring a bidder to scroll down several times to get to it was _designed_ to mislead bidders and was clearly constructed with an intent to defraud.

Not only was the smug little creepess morally wrong, but she was legally wrong. Her eBay listings were designed as scams. Had the large-print summary of the item disclosed that it was a photo of a cell phone, no one would have bid, which is why she didn't disclose it there.

Second, the nasty little scammer responded to negative feedback -- and she totally deserved that feedback -- by alleging the purchasers had sent her a bad check and were scammers themselves from Nigeria -- all of which was a complete and utter lie. That is strong evidence for bad faith on the part of the seller -- it's tantamount to blaming the victim of a crime for the commission of the crime.

Because this was an interstate transaction -- the seller in one state and the purchasers in another, an ordinary court of small claims could not hear the case. A suit would have been necessary in federal court, which not only would have been expensive, but the sum of funds defrauded would have annoyed the federal judge -- under $500.00 Judge Judy is not acting as a courtroom judge on television, but as an arbitrator where the parties have agreed to abide by her decision in a session of "binding arbitration." The show's credits disclose that. Litigants are paid a fee for their appearance, and any funds awarded are deducted from the loser's fee and paid to the winner.

What will be interesting is whether the U.S. attorney wlll prosecute the little perp for her acts of instrestate fraud. Apparently, the two incidents we saw on Judge Judy were not the only two transactions perpetrated by the young wastrel. If the U.S. attorney goes forward with prosecution, the perpetrator and her husband who was part of it will, I predict, end up in prison and have to pay a fine.

By the way, eBay should immediately ban such sellers and correct their malicious feedback. It's clearly fraudulent to bury a disclosure that a successful bidder will be purchase a mere photograph of the item, when the main listing discloses the item itself -- there can be no doubt that such a listing had been posted with an intention to defraud a good faith bidder.

In this case, the seller was banned from eBay and the malicioius feedback removed two days before the Judge Judy arbitration went forward.

Gary, your post confirms that your "bit" of legal training wasn't worth two bits. Mayhapse it was obtained through a dubious online scam? As the poster above indicated, there is no binding authority created by an extra-judicial arbitration. Sigh...this is what happens when "everybody is an expert."

sigh...

While a judgement rendered in a court arbitration would not serve as "enforceable precedent" in future court proceedings, because small claims proceedings are not trial courts, any party to the matter may introduce cited juducial record for consideration by the judge.

Furthermore, a plaintiff may in fact elevate the filing status of a small claims complaint within their own jurisdiction to that of a civil tort by providing evidence to the court that similar legal actions have been granted judgements in other jurisdictions which exceed the statutory maximum dollar cap for small claims actions within the jurisdiction of filing.

In conclusion:

Given the fact that small claims actions are not subject to the Rules of Evidence as they apply to trial court matters, if either party to the matter wishes to submit any document, writing, recording, photograhpic image, tangible object, witness, demonstration, cited court matter or any other person or thing which is deemed pertinant to the matter and worthy of consideration by the judge of record, that party may do so at their discretion in so far as it does not interfere with legal process, individual rights, the ascertaining of the facts or the function of the court in those respects. It is then the function of the court to determine the value of those presentations if any.

I submit that I got my two bits worth.

I rest my case.

Ben Matlock -

If all Judge Judy is, is an arbitrator, then why in other episodes has she talked about writing up an order for a Federal Marshal to execute? This usually has to do with returning property.

If anyone can be an arbitrator, I have to assume that not just anyone can write these court orders?
It seems to me based on this, Judge Judy has more authority than you are attributing?

I'm not arguing your point on precedence as that all made sense to me. But the idea that she as an arbitrator is no more relevant than your neighbor’s Uncle Moe doesn't seem to make much sense.