[at bay]

"We were ignorant of the law."

Were you also igorant of the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse? C'mon. Quit it.

[Malacoda]

Actually, I'm not a smoker, so it doesn't affect me one way or t'other. You'll notice I posted without additional commentary.

I DO think that they deserved a warning, though. Eleven thousand dollars is a lot to come up with on short notice, and the Demokratik republik of Gnu Jerksey is sort of notorious for this crap.

[Las Vegas Ron]

"We were ignorant of the law."

"Were you also igorant of the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse? C'mon. Quit it".

Seems to me, the vendor should be responsible for collecting sales taxes.

As far as ignorance of the law, who could possibly keep track and be aware of every law on the books? Thousands of new laws are past every year.

Every one of us probably does something illegal everyday and don't even realize it

[mrmargaritaville]

Actually the SC has found that "ignorance of the law is an excuse". In 1957 they ruled in Lambert v. California that "passive" ignorance of the law is an excuse.

[raj bhatia]

Not that simple. In any sale you have to disclose the total amount a customer needs to pay. That includes any hidden or deferred taxes. The question is, did the online retailer say explicitly that a sales tax is owed? Does New Jersey law require an explicit disclosure from the online retailer to the customer?