Is this fraudulent?

[Amilcar]

If someone advertises your goods for sale without permission and without telling you, is this an intention to commit fraud?

[Stu Dent]

Can you expand on your question?

Let's consider some scenarios:

Terry allows Arfur to show off his vintage Ford Capri on Arfur's garage forecourt - it attracts punters in to look at Arfur's old bangers. But Arfur, finding himself short of a monkey or two decides to advertise and flog Terry's old Capri. That's not fraud, it's theft.

The moment Arfur decides to deprive Terry of his property for his own benefit he commits a crime.

If Terry had given Arfur permission to sell his Capri and Arfur tells Terry he only got a monkey for it (�500) when in fact Arfur got an archer for it (�2000), intending to pocket �1500 for himself, that's fraud.

Fraud and theft are both crimes of dishonesty but the former involves a legitimate act - in this case Arfur had permission from Terry to sell his old Capri.

[Stu Dent]

So if Arfur advertises Terry's Capri with Terry's knowledge, but where Arfur intends to make a profit for himself, the intention to defraud occurs at the point where Arfur puts his plan into motion.

If Terry knows nothing of Arfur's plan and Arfur is in possession of the car then Theft occurs at the point where Arfur forms the intention in his mind to deprive Terry of his property.

If Arfur does not have possession of Terry's car then the incohate offence of 'attempted theft' occurs whn Arfur puts his plant into motion to deprive Terry of his old Capri.

[Amilcar]

Hi, thanks for the response. For obvious reasons, let's keep with the hypothetical approach. Arfur is a dealer and has sold Terry a s/h Capri via the Internet. Terry pays in advance and on basis of advert/Email descriptions. After receiving the Capri and initial inspection, Terry finds faults and discrepancies. Rejects it (DSR 2000 and/or SoGA79 and/or Misrep 1967) but Arfur states, "Car is Sold, Terry. Eff off!" Terry objects and threatens to sue. Five months down the line, Terry sees his car's pics on Arfur's website again (and other car sales websites). The ads say, "Confirmed for sale." Presumably, Arfur has decided to try to sell Terry's motor to raise funds to reimburse him but has done so without title to the goods or permission from the owner. Which of your scenarios would apply and what crime/intent is represented in the plot? Thanks again for your interest!!!

[Amilcar]

PS. As you can see from above. The presumed objective of Arfur was not to deprive Terry but to reimburse him (though this was never stated) ie there was no gain for Arfur other than to enable him to address his liability to Terry. Would 'attempted theft' still apply?
In addition, incidentally, Arfur's website declared that all cars for sale were "available for inspection." This could not be true in the case of the Capri because it was still with the oblivious Terry. Was the website wording fraudulent as it applied to the Capri or is there another name for that misrepresentation?