, , , , , , , , , , ,

PhotobucketMagicians in the Philippines, as anywhere else in the world, have their own sets of principles to guide them in how to observe upright and ethical conduct in their lives.

However, in real life, the world is not rendered in black and white.  There are grays and hues and silvers in between, lots of them. They make it difficult for even the most powerful magician in the Philippines to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, beautiful from ugly.

Today, for the purpose of testing your brain power and scruples, let me paint a hypothetical scenario.

PhotobucketSuppose in one magic magazine, you see the ad of a new prop that promises to perform miracles. Let’s say it’s a floating effect. The ad claims you can perform it “without being attached to anything else…” (an exaggeration, of course).  Or the copy may say, “no magnets, mirrors, electronic devices, etc…” and leaves out the detail that it uses IT (a copy-writing technique called non full disclosure). The ad copy is very compelling. Since you are looking for a floating effect that doesn’t use an IT, you order the prop.

When the product arrives, you find that while the ad was accurate in most part, it left out an essential detail that, had it been fully disclosed, would have discouraged you from buying the item. The upshot: you find the product less than desirable.

What is the buyer’s recourse in this case? Can he complain to the dealer for publishing a misleading/exaggerated/half-truthful ad?

Can he publish a review exposing the trick itself? If no, why not? He has been hoodwinked into buying a product he would find no use of. Why can’t he warn his brother magicians from buying this product by exposing its secret?

I’ll leave this poser for you to ponder upon.

Stay magical,