My take on this whole stupidity:
Someone like Bobak with a greater understanding of law may find fault with my logic, but to the best of my understanding for "fraud" to occur basically all you have to do is prove...well..."fraudulent intent".
So let's say I'm selling a Hong Kong Knock-Off of a Transformer. It looks exactly like a Green Optimus Prime and the box says "MegaFormers". If I purchased it for $20 in China town or online and I go to eBay and I try to sell it for $30 then that's not fraud. I'm intending to make more than I paid for it, but that doesn't change it's inherant value to someone who wants the goofy looking thing.
Now if it looked EXACTLY the same and I tried to sell it for $500, then that is fraud. I'm intending to make more money on it by playing of the value of ANOTHER, more valuable yet similar looking item. The price alone should be an indicator that what I'm selling is authetic even if I never outright declare it is.
If someone paid $220 for a conversion and the offers to sell it for an exponential sum of what they paid for it and that price is within the price range of what one would expect the authentic item to be...than there may be an intent to commit fraud by making the percieved value of that game higher than it has any right to be.
I could be wrong on that but I think that's close.
As far as this whole scenario is going:
Hell, this may even be subject to the "Lemon Law" in the States. No commercial transaction is complete until 72 hours have elapsed. No matter what you buy or where you buy it if it doesn't meet the stated or implied conditions of that transaction, the transaction can be legally recinded. The seller gets his item back, the buyer gets his money back. Even if you go to a store that has "NO RETURNS", legally they have to let you if the product is faulty or doesn't work as implied. That's why you sometimes see "Sold AS IS" because then the stated condition is saying there may be something wrong with it, check it out first.
This law was basically put into effect for used car dealerships. People would buy a car and then the next day it wouldn't start.
This was a legal transaction but the implied condition of the game (in this case implied by the price, the starting price specifically) was not met. The buyer thought it was real, the seller, in this case Ralph's father, admitted he didn't know if it was real or not but agreed to refund the money if it wasn't. Him saying that means legally he was representing the game as authentic in an 'or else' case. "It's real, or else I'll refund your money". So both parties have agreed the cart is authentic, it was not, the transaction never took place, the buyer should get back his money, the seller should get back his cart. The shipping and any other costs should be split, although if I was Laurent I'd offer to eat $20 to get back a couple thousand.
If anyone else knows more about law than I (which is quite a few) let me know if I'm mistaken, because as I've said this is just my interpretation.
