some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[timn1]

Hypothetically:

A collector of long acquaintance (call him A) comes up to the table at the National that I am sharing with two friends. I happen to be manning the table alone at that moment. He asks to see the T209s that my friend (call him M) has in his case. A is a longtime T209 collector, as is my friend. After looking through them for a minute or two, Collector A exclaims to me in horror, "THESE ARE MY CARDS!"

Now, my friend M has previously told me that about a month earlier he bought this group plus some others from a well-known dealer who is set up at the National (call him B). M puts some of the group in his own collection, sells some to two collector friends who are also working on the set, and brings the remainder to his case at the National. I do not remember exactly what he paid for them. For some general context, the amount is somewhere between $2500 and $5000.

It quickly comes to light that A has been storing his cards with his grandparents, far from where he lives. His brother - an (alleged) scamp or ne'er-do-well - (allegedly) decides to sell them for drug money or something equally worthy. They pass from the initial buyer through at least one middleman to dealer B, who contacts M and they make the deal.

Now, regardless of whether or not law enforcement does something to punish the (alleged) thief, someone is likely to get screwed here. I will share with you that my friend M feels an obligation to:

1. return all of the cards that he has in his possession to A, the initial victim of the theft, which he does unconditionally.
2. get back the cards he has sold to other collectors, refund their money, and return those cards to A, which he does unconditionally.

The question for all you stringent moral arbiters is, what is the fairest solution from here? What is missing from this restitution? What do you feel the remaining legal and/or ethical obligations of the following actors to be, if any?

- A, the innocent victim of (alleged) theft?

-. B, the dealer who bought the cards from an unknown party (presumably not knowing they were stolen) and then sold them to M?

Right now, this entire narrative should be taken as hypothetical. Whether it remains so will be up to my friend when I have the chance to speak to him about it.

[sb1]

Knowing most of the events/players of this scenario, it would be most desirable if all of the cards somehow got back to A. However some are too far dispersed at this time and it also requires someone or more than one take a hit, as the person who stole them and sold them to the dealer has no skin in the game.

M has little chance of getting reimbursed from B and B has no chance of getting reimbursed by the culprit, (sure would be easier if we could use names, the initials confuse me) :) and A has little chance of ever getting back to where he was in this scenario before the theft.

I think if M does the best he can to reassemble the original group and makes a good faith effort to make A whole, at the very least he makes himself feel better about the entire mess and gives A a large portion of the collection back in it's proper place. At that point it would be nice if B would step up and reimburse M at least some money to help out. No one is going to be completely unscathed by this entire deal, except for the perp who could probably care less.

All that being said, this is probably not the best venue to try this case, as most outsiders will not have the complete story(at least as we know it).

[the-illini]

Hypothetically speaking it would be nice if the dealer acted in good faith to make A as whole as possible rather than, hypothetically, lawyering up to check their responsibility under the letter of the law.

Chris Bland

[oldjudge]

I think that M has done the right thing-return the cards to A that he has in his possession and recouped and return those that he sold. That should make victim A whole or nearly whole. M should then go to B and explain the situation. If B is reputable he will refund M's purchase price and then, if there are others between himself and scum bag brother try to get his purchase price from them. Assuming scum bag brother has already used the money and cannot repay, someone south of B, or B, will lose money. Hopefully, the police are involved and part of scum bag brother's sentence is to make restitution for the amounts lost. I think it would be a big mistake if scum bag brother is not prosecuted, he needs to be saved from himself.

[oldjudge]

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.

[Jacklitsch]

I like M a lot but A should bear most of the responsibility here. After all it was he who failed to safeguard his collection and likely it was his brother who stole the cards.

I understand that a thief cannot convey good title and likely the end result would have been the same. There may be some exception if the buyer acquires goods from a bona fide seller (B).

Anyway M is good guy as we all know.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Your friend is a saint.

The brother needs to be reported to the police though because this could all be some elaborate hoax otherwise. Sell your cards, blame a "brother" get cards back and win all the way to the bank. Not likely, but possible.

At the very least I would hope the original owner would recognize the herculean effort being undertaken by your friend and do something to lessen the pain.

[the-illini]

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.

B is a member of the board. I will leave it to A or M if they wish to reveal who it is.

Chris Bland

[egbeachley]

M didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be the one who loses any money.

A should take the financial hit now and work on getting reimbursed by brother, unless all transactions can be reversed. Presumably it's the original buyer who made the most profit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to me B and M are both equally innocent BFPs. So why should B absorb all the hit (assuming B has no recourse against the thief), is it just because someone has to and he is earlier in the chain?

[oldjudge]

Eric-I strongly disagree with you. If someone broke into your house and stole your collection would you feel that you should bear the total loss because you had not "secured" it? A believed he left the collection in a secure place.

[oldjudge]

Peter-If justice is served B will only be out the time value of money (and his profit margin on resale). As a dealer, he should bear some responsibility if he buys stolen goods.

[Rookiemonster]

“Hypothetically “what if I had a crack head brother and told him to sell my cards and I’ll report them stolen. Then I’ll go after my cards and get most of them back and drop the charges on my brother?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter-If justice is served B will only be out the time value of money (and his profit margin on resale). As a dealer, he should bear some responsibility if he buys stolen goods.

How likely is it that justice will be served? Without knowing the players, isn't it more likely someone is going to be left holding the bag? Both B and M made innocent purchases, so (forget law) morally why should B take the full hit and M be made whole?

[bobbvc]

Knowing nothing else about this or any of the players I would say the issue is between A and his brother. If B knew they were stolen then it's on him as well. I don't see how anyone else is responsible unless they knew about the original theft.

[bdk1976]

HYPOTHETICALLY:

I’d probably tell ‘A’ that if he wants his cards he should go beat his money out of his sh!thead brother and buy his cards back with the proceeds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oldjudge]

How likely is it that justice will be served? Without knowing the players, isn't it more likely someone is going to be left holding the bag? Both B and M made innocent purchases, so (forget law) morally why should B take the full hit and M be made whole?

Counselor, you know the answer to this better than I do.

[egbeachley]

Eric-I strongly disagree with you. If someone broke into your house and stole your collection would you feel that you should bear the total loss because you had not "secured" it? A believed he left the collection in a secure place.

Absolutely. Who else should, assuming the buyers didn't suspect they were stolen?

Maybe one of us misread the scenario. But it looks like M paid full retail for the cards, the 3rd sale down the line (first sale by brother locally, then to Dealer B, then to M). That burden shouldn't be on M. Yes, maybe B will step up and then the first buyer will also. But that should be worked out first. Then yes, M should help with the process and loses any profits, same as B and first buyer.

Not to mention that maybe A will eventually be made whole by the brother (maybe parents adjust inheritance or court garnishments).

[timn1]

Good thoughts, everyone. Hypothetically, this may have happened a while ago, lol. The money is long gone, the police were notified, etc.

My own feeling is that A and B should have stepped up and shared the financial hit with M. None of the three acted wrongly in the initial stages, but so far only M has been willing to take any significant steps to do the right thing. He is out all the cards and all the money he bought them with. I believe the other two are relying on his goodwill and hoping to skate. He is understandably unhappy about the situation, but has not wanted to complain publicly. I finally have gotten fed up on his behalf and decided to put the situation out here so people could consider it.

Would it be appropriate to name the parties if M wishes to?

[BearBailey]

The cards are where the cards are the dealers did nothing wrong unless they knowingly bought stolen cards. The brother would no longer be my brother.

[Peter_Spaeth]

M definitely should return the cards, now that he knows they are stolen. He can't legally, or ethically, keep stolen property. Cross reference NYPL discussion.

So the question becomes now how does one sort out the mess among the other players.

[egbeachley]

M definitely should return the cards, now that he knows they are stolen. He can't legally, or ethically, keep stolen property. Cross reference NYPL discussion.

So the question becomes now how does one sort out the mess.

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

Yeah and I think M is entitled to the refund too because B really had nothing to sell him in the first place. It just bothers me that B then gets stuck holding the bag, assuming B has no recourse against the brother (or was there another intermediary to whom B can now go?).

[timn1]

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Being able to sleep at night -- priceless.

[egbeachley]

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

[slidekellyslide]

I am currently mixed up in a situation where I unknowingly purchased stolen items. A lady came into my store and sold me some customized McFarlane football figurines that were all made into former Nebraska football players. The customs were in packages and were professionally made, I gave her a substantial amount of money for them. I placed all 15 of them on ebay and they were up to about $500 after 3 days. I got a question from an ebayer asking me where I'd gotten them. I told him that I bought them from someone who came to my store. He then told me they were stolen from him 3 years ago. I asked him to send me the police report and the next day he did. I called the police and they told me I needed to contact the police in his town (about 100 miles from me). They asked me a bunch of questions and then they asked the Lincoln police to come and take pics of the items. I also gave them her info as I only pay people via check and get their driver's license. I assume paying by check and taking ID deters thieves from even trying to sell to me. The cops told me that the lady has a warrant, but they didn't tell me what it was for.

I do believe these items were stolen from the guy, they all matched up with what was on the police report from three years ago although there were hundreds of items listed that the lady did not bring to me. The police do not seem very interested in pursuing this and said the guy was paid by insurance for the theft. I'm not so sure the local police are pursing it either because the lady came back into my store a few days ago trying to sell me baseball cards (no baseball cards were on the police report list). I took her aside and explained to her that the items she brought me a few weeks ago were stolen, she then told me a different story than the original story she gave me when she sold the figures to me. She said the figures were in her dad's possession and he had passed away. This time she told me she bought them from some guy she didn't know. As she was leaving I took her license plate down and gave it to the police, but still haven't heard anything from them.

The original owner has not contacted me since sending me the police report, but I'm wondering what the legal ownership of these items are since he was paid via insurance for them. If he was paid for what he valued the items at then it was more than I would have expected to get for them on ebay. He also had a lot of common NASCAR and Star Wars toys stolen from him that he overvalued as well. The police report states that the storage unit they were stolen from had no damage to the lock, and they found the lock on the inside of the unit.

[timn1]

He tried. B basically lawyered up and wouldn’t talk to him.
Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

M.

[the-illini]

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

He went to B. B called his lawyer to see what he was obligated to do.

Chris Bland

[Peter_Spaeth]

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

M had to give them back. A does not have to wait for the cards to go back up the chain, they are A's cards and A gets them from whoever has possession. But that does not preclude M from going after B now.

[egbeachley]

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew or suspected they were stolen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew they were stolen.

It doesn't matter, because they weren't B's to sell irrespective of what B knew or did not know. M paid for nothing. Although I don't love the outcome, because I feel for B as an innocent, B should refund M and go after his seller.

[seanofjapan]

I'm going to be a contrarian and say that I think M should keep the cards.

This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible).

I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss.

M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening.

A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so.

While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss. My opinion would be a lot different if M knew they were stolen or had reason to suspect they were stolen and turned a blind eye to that (ie bought them from an unreliable source, etc), in which case I would say he should absolutely return them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think M should keep the cards.

This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible).

I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss.

M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening.

A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so.

While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss.

You might want to read post 24.

[BeanTown]

A is in the photo
B is not in the photo
M took the photo
The OP is also in the photo

I was at B's table browsing and over heard a sleezy conversation about this entire situation at the Atlantic City National. M knows this as I spoke to him minutes later on this.

Call me W (whitness) and I'm in the photo to!

[seanofjapan]

You might want to read post 24.

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

Disagree completely. One cannot keep stolen goods.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

[timn1]

The point is, as a supposedly honest hobby, shouldn’t we be able to exert ethical pressure so that the unlucky person who happened to have them when the theft was discovered shouldn’t be stuck with the entire loss?

You might want to read post 24.

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

When ethical persuasion doesn't work, there's always legal action.

[seanofjapan]

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

That is a different situation though. Personally I think whatever rule we (meaning collectors in general) establish to deal with situations involving stolen goods should encourage two types of behavior:

1) it should require dealers to exercise due diligence when purchasing cards. If they fail to do so (say by turning a blind eye to cards from a suspicious source, etc), they should eat the loss.
2) it should encourage collectors to take reasonable measures to safeguard their collections from theft. If they fail to do so they should eat the loss, unless they can show the dealer failed to exercise due diligence per 1 above, in which case the dealer should eat the loss regardless of the collector's negligence.

I think this is a better rule than merely saying "stolen goods should be returned always no matter what", which is a rule that encourages neither due diligence on the part of dealers (because if that is the rule they know they will have to give back cards regardless of whether or not they acted properly, so why would they bother going to the trouble) or appropriate care by collectors (for the same reason).

In the OP's scenario, all the facts which led to the loss in the first place are attributable to A rather than M. A had a drug addict thief for a brother? How is that M's fault? A put his cards where his brother had access? How is that M's fault?

Also since whoever eats the loss is going to have a claim against A's brother, it makes little sense to put M, who does not know or have any connection to the brother, in that position rather than A, who presumably (since its his brother) has a much closer connection to that person. If anyone is going to have a chance at getting money out of the real culprit it is A rather than M.

Conversely, nothing in the facts suggest that M did not exercise due diligence in making the purchase (unless I am missing something).

So I stand by my belief that M should not have been obligated to return the cards. It speaks well to his character and honesty as a dealer that he did so, but I don't think he should be been obligated to.

[timn1]

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

[mantlefan]

Did A - report the theft to the Police?

Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

And what does M's lawyer say? M paid B for goods that turned out to be stolen and had no value because he was obligated to return them. Why doesn't M have a right to his money back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

More specifically, I believe M can sue B for breach of warranty of title, because B impliedly warranted he had title to the goods he was selling, whereas he did not. M should not be cowed because of what B claims his lawyer told him.

[58pinson]

Hypothetically:

In this scenario I see no one but "A" who has a problem.

That said cards are/were his is an allegation.
That a theft took place is unsubstantiated.
Even if both are true he exercised negligence in not insuring his property.
The commodity in question is generic and bearer indemnified.


I would draw a different set of conclusions were the items tracable via third party grading identicication or set registry, and a timely police report filed and verifiable. However, as any other player in this vignette I would do only what I was legally compelled to. Sorry

I'm aware that this is colored by the fact that these parties know each other, and while I think 'M" actions very commendable I feel he went way out of his way.

[BeanTown]

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

[drcy]

Legally, M doesn't return them or have direct financial obligation to A. With stolen property, you move step-by-step down the chain of custody and M returns them for refund from the person he bought them from. That's if you want to solve this by rule of law-- if the parties wish to work it out some other way the could do that.

This is why you are supposed to keep the receipt. Becuase if something turns out to have been stolen (even if five owners earlier), you get the refund from the person you bought the item from.

A's main course of action, it seems to me, is with his brother that originally stole/sold them.

[the-illini]

Did A - report the theft to the Police?

Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?

Great questions Frank.

[timn1]

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

[Tennis13]

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.


So that was my thinking, except that M should let his name be known because if the story is true, he's a real honest guy. Maybe we all chip in $5 each to make him whole on his $2,500 to $5,000 for being a good guy.

[timn1]

And I don’t know the answers. I’m not sure M knows either. In situations like that, you are pretty much at the mercy of what people are telling you. And those trying to do the right thing , like my friend, are often at a real disadvantage.



Great questions Frank.

[oldjudge]

I may be slow to the party but I have found out who B is. I will unequivocally never deal with his company again regardless of what happens from this point forward.

[timn1]

Obviously I am willing and eager to name those involved, but won’t do so until I can talk to my friend. He is dealing with a serious family issue at the moment so it may not be right away.

So that was my thinking, except that M should let his name be known because if the story is true, he's a real honest guy. Maybe we all chip in $5 each to make him whole on his $2,500 to $5,000 for being a good guy.

[BeanTown]

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.

Heck, I wanted to come out on this years ago. M was trying to allow everyone time to do the right thing. He asked me not to post so I didnt back then. I will say the B wont get my business either. That includes their ebay auctions and the National. B was more worried about keeping his profits which was a big percentage than taking them back from M. He also said he should have known they were hot as he barely paid anything for them.

I thout a claim should have been made and insurance get involved, which then they would require a police report.

[Kenny Cole]

I wonder if A reported the return of the cards to his insurance carrier who, as I understand the scenario, had previously paid for the loss. If that is accurate, the carrier has title to the cards, not A IMO. He doesn't get to keep both the cards and the money he was paid for them because that's, at a minimum, betterment. I also agree with Peter that an there is an action for breach of warranty of title. When you sell something you impliedly warrant that it is yours to sell. These cards evidently weren't his to sell.

[timn1]

I don’t know whether A had any insurance. You may possibly be conflating my narrative with the one added to the thread by Dan Bretta,who did make mention of an insurance claim. See post 27 above.

[Jason]

Im glad this is finally being put out and talked about. M didnt deserve this and once contacted and told of the hypothetical issue:D myself I returned a card that belonged to A. That was the end of my involvement in this and I always wanted to know more and see M made whole in some way or another. And with A never coming on this board and thanking M for all his hard work on this matter stood out to me as very peculiar. I mean has he even posted once since all this transpired?

[Kenny Cole]

I don’t know whether A had any insurance. You may possibly be conflating my narrative with the one added to the thread by Dan Bretta,who did make mention of an insurance claim. See post 27 above.

Ah, OK. Sorry.

[steve B]

Could M go after the brother for his purchase price plus the lost profit? Or would the whole thing have to follow the chain backwards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Could M go after the brother for his purchase price plus the lost profit? Or would the whole thing have to follow the chain backwards.

I think M has to go after B, because it's B who wronged him, selling him cards to which he did not have title.

Edit to add B should give M his money back, take it as a loss, and get a better lawyer. :) Or at least work out some accommodation that leaves both innocents satisfied.

[Kenny Cole]

I may be slow to the party but I have found out who B is. I will unequivocally never deal with his company again regardless of what happens from this point forward.

I too have found out and am with Jay

[Rich Falvo]

Fascinating reading. Sometimes I wish I dealt with more expensive cards and other times I read a thread like this and am glad most of my cards are inexpensive.

[Rhotchkiss]

Sure would love to know who these people are, especially B..... If you know and wont say, I respect that, but please stop posting that you know and wont do biz anymore because its like telling a secret in the face of us who don't know!! Thanks'

Ryan

[aloondilana]

So the brothers got the cards and the money.

Sounds like a good scam on the brothers behalf.

[chlankf]

M whoever you are, bit props and respect. B, hopefully gets outed
I don't want to give my $$ to him, please share his info so we can all play the good guy. I understand the slander aspects, but if its all true there is no wrongdoing.

I had a similar situation at my brick and mortar. Police were involved, was asked to return Goods and was glad to do so. Police informed that original owner had been compensated by insurance but I was still to give the property back. I asked original owner to compensate me for my original expense since he had already been paid. He refused. I asked the police if I had any recourse they advised since there were no identifying marks or tracking information on the item, such as registration number. It was my judgment to keep or return to the original owner. Since he had already been compensated, I opted to keep the item. Police belt I was doing this original owner wrong, however I differ in that opinion.

I know it's a different situation. However, M is a true hero in the hobby. I would gladly spend my money with him.

[chalupacollects]

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...

[Peter_Spaeth]

No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...

And if the dealer refuses, then what?

[chalupacollects]

I am currently mixed up in a situation where I unknowingly purchased stolen items. A lady came into my store and sold me some customized McFarlane football figurines that were all made into former Nebraska football players. The customs were in packages and were professionally made, I gave her a substantial amount of money for them. I placed all 15 of them on ebay and they were up to about $500 after 3 days. I got a question from an ebayer asking me where I'd gotten them. I told him that I bought them from someone who came to my store. He then told me they were stolen from him 3 years ago. I asked him to send me the police report and the next day he did. I called the police and they told me I needed to contact the police in his town (about 100 miles from me). They asked me a bunch of questions and then they asked the Lincoln police to come and take pics of the items. I also gave them her info as I only pay people via check and get their driver's license. I assume paying by check and taking ID deters thieves from even trying to sell to me. The cops told me that the lady has a warrant, but they didn't tell me what it was for.

I do believe these items were stolen from the guy, they all matched up with what was on the police report from three years ago although there were hundreds of items listed that the lady did not bring to me. The police do not seem very interested in pursuing this and said the guy was paid by insurance for the theft. I'm not so sure the local police are pursing it either because the lady came back into my store a few days ago trying to sell me baseball cards (no baseball cards were on the police report list). I took her aside and explained to her that the items she brought me a few weeks ago were stolen, she then told me a different story than the original story she gave me when she sold the figures to me. She said the figures were in her dad's possession and he had passed away. This time she told me she bought them from some guy she didn't know. As she was leaving I took her license plate down and gave it to the police, but still haven't heard anything from them.

The original owner has not contacted me since sending me the police report, but I'm wondering what the legal ownership of these items are since he was paid via insurance for them. If he was paid for what he valued the items at then it was more than I would have expected to get for them on ebay. He also had a lot of common NASCAR and Star Wars toys stolen from him that he overvalued as well. The police report states that the storage unit they were stolen from had no damage to the lock, and they found the lock on the inside of the unit.

I believe if the insurance company paid the claim, they are the new owner of the items... not unlike totaling a car, insurance pays the claim and they take the car...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I believe if the insurance company paid the claim, they are the new owner of the items... not unlike totaling a car, insurance pays the claim and they take the car...

I think that's right because most insurance policies will have what's called a right of salvage provision.

[autograf]

I'm aware of all the A, B & M parties as others on the thread are. My understanding is that A wouldn't press charges against the brother so he gets off scott free. My thoughts are maybe M should have given the cards to someone to hold in escrow until A, B & M could figure something out (my undertstanding is another dealer is also between the brother and B).

Without holding the brother accountable, who's to say this won't happen again and put dealer D and collector K in the mix too? A's REAL beef should have been with his brother and sounds like nothing ever happened there unless I don't have all the story. In addition, looks like B, M and the other dealer between the brother and B should have somehow shared the misery three ways, maybe? I don't know.

Not sure how, especially at a card show, or how these guys buy groups of cards and collections of cards that you can fully insulate yourself from buying stolen merchandise. I know when I've sold stuff to dealers at shows no one's ever gotten my ID nor in few cases paid with a check. Seems like it's a perfect situation for moving stolen goods..........a shame for all in the loop really. I'm sure B has lost a LOT of business based on their actions as well.

[Jacklitsch]

Tom, how can you say B has lost a lot of business when most of us don't know who B is?

[Jacklitsch]

For those of you in the know, good for you. For the rest of us it's caveat emptor.

[chalupacollects]

And if the dealer refuses, then what?

Then we trade contact info and you file a police report.

I would think that the dealer once confronted with an officer questioning why said dealer is buying/selling stolen items (fencing?) at a show he might be more agreeable to refunding the purchase and giving the card back to you. He can then file is own report and insurance claim against the thief if he knows who it is..

Otherwise might be an embarrassing situation among a crowd of his peers at the show, endless gossip and a possible starring role on a new net54 thread.

If I had to give over the item, I would get a receipt from the officer and if a credit card purchase call the card company and cancel the sale. If cash I would not let it go and follow through the process as I am not going to take the hit as all I did was buy an item from a dealer who presented it as conveyable title...

[timn1]

my friend gives me permission to do it. If he doesn't, then I would point out that there are ways for smart people to find these things out - I can't tell you myself, but many other people do know...

[Exhibitman]

The insurer who pays out typically has a subrogation right--it steps into the shoes of the insured for purposes of pursuing the person who caused the damage. Most personal articles policies also have language expressly transferring rights to damaged or recovered items to the insurer if payment is made to the insured on the policy.

I have no compunctions about naming the dealer, except I can't recall his name. I know he sets up at the National and has a wife who is very visible as part of the business. She is usually at the table over-dressed for the occasion, which in the case of a card show means she is usually wearing female clothing without visible scars, tattoos or a fanny pack.

As for the case itself, I see it this way:

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Virtually no jurisdiction allows a thief to pass good title to a stolen object (there are a few bona fide purchaser laws in Texas for example that might allow it in certain circumstances, but this all went down in states that aren't run by moonbats). Doesn't matter how remote or how many times it is resold, title to the card is no good and the actual owner can recover it. Think of it this way: I steal the Mona Lisa and sell it to you and you can resell it a hundred times to a hundred different purchasers...doesn't mean the end buyer owns it because I never owned it; the lady goes back to Paris if the French authorities come a knocking. So, M never acquired good title to the cards because the dealer never had title to them because he purchased from a thief. The actual owner has the right to go into court and demand that M return his cards or pay the value of them. IMO, M did the right thing but he also did the thing that any decent attorney would have told him was the thing he would be compelled to do if push came to shove. M has a right against the dealer (what the heck is his name?) for what Peter already alluded to--breach of an implied warranty of good title to the merch. The dealer has the right to sue A's junkie brother for the cost he is out. A also can sue the brother and perhaps the grandparents for allowing the known junkie-criminal access to the cards in the first place.

[drcy]

I don't know the people and the details of this story, but just realize that normal and legal practice is to give refund to a person who was the direct buyer. Period. With stolen items and a chain of ownership, refund/return is given down the line of owners. It is very problematic giving refund to someone who wasn't your buyer-- especially if you don't know them. At the very least, there had better be good proof that the items were stolen.

In other cases, I find it problematic when the people on hobby boards criticize a big auction house or dealer refuses to refund years later to someone who never bought the item from them. If the hobby expects this and does not expect the refundee to provide significant proof the items were stolen and of the chain of ownership, the auctioneer or dealer could theoretically be giving out refunds to multiple people on one item. I've heard a big auction house say "I've never sold anything to this person and have never met him. Why should I be handing him over money?"-- which is a reasonable (and legally correct) argument.

As mentioned, A's main beef and source of getting money back is with his brother. And, at the very least, if he expects money back from the third or whatever generation buyer, he'd better have insurance claim papers or police report to prove the items were stolen.

If the parties want to cut a deal and do things differently because they think that's the right thing to do, that is fine and acceptable, but legally M never owed refund directly to A. That's not to say A does not get a refund or the cards back, but this is not the way the law says it is to be done. Judges often say (to the effect) "You have a legitimate case, but you've sued the wrong person."

[Peter_Spaeth]

When the police or the feds recover stolen property from its current owner, innocent or not, they don't say to the current owner, please go return the item to the person you bought it from and get a refund. They take it.

[judsonhamlin]

And do (or should) list that downstream buyer as an additional victim

[judsonhamlin]

And if I learn who B is, he'll lose my business as well

[rhettyeakley]

I am not aware of the players in this scenario BUT as one half of a well known set of brothers (along with Rhys) on this forum/hobby I just don’t want anyone to think we are “A,” or even “B” for that matter.

[Exhibitman]

Don't worry Rhett: you guys aren't well known at all ;)

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

[BeanTown]

Don't worry Rhett: no one likes you guys anyway ;)

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

Is the drummer related to the infamous Red Sox player that had the ball go between his legs, which ultimately cost them the series?

[egbeachley]

Based on recent posts, that's why M shouldn't have just given A the cards right away. B doesn't feel compelled to even rewind his profits and A doesn't feel compelled to file a police report.

Now how is M going to even pursue damages with the brother? Not even sure he can since the brother and M didn't deal directly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Based on recent posts, that's why M shouldn't have just given A the cards right away. B doesn't feel compelled to even rewind his profits and A doesn't feel compelled to file a police report.

Now how is M going to even pursue damages with the brother? Not even sure he can since the brother and M didn't deal directly.

M clearly put what was right above his wallet. But he does, I believe, have recourse against Chris. Of course for the amount involved and depending on where he lives a claim may not be practical.

[Exhibitman]

Is the drummer related to the infamous Red Sox player that had the ball go between his legs, which ultimately cost them the series?

I have no idea if he is related to David Ortiz. :)

[Rhotchkiss]

I love that we just got a Jam reference; well done Adam, great band! It's a crying shame they disbanded as early as they did.

[rhettyeakley]

don't worry rhett: You guys aren't well known at all ;)


lol

[edjs]

Don't worry Rhett: you guys aren't well known at all ;)

So, I refreshed my recollection and I believe the mystery dealer hails from Louisville KY and has the same last name as the drummer from The Jam.

I never thought I would see a reference to the Jam on here. All Mod Cons, eh?

[egbeachley]

M clearly put what was right above his wallet. But he does, I believe, have recourse against Chris.

Maybe. But maybe not since the brothers got the cards and the money and there is no police report for M to even reference in a case against B.

I suppose B can say "what stolen cards? Just because A said they were stolen doesn't mean it's true"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Maybe. But maybe not since the brothers got the cards and the money and there is no police report for M to even reference in a case against B.

I suppose B can say "what stolen cards? Just because A said they were stolen doesn't mean it's true"

Except that B already has acknowledged to M that he knows (now) they were stolen and relied on his lawyer as a reason not to refund. I suppose B could lie about that too, in a hypothetical trial.

[timn1]

I love that we just got a Jam reference; well done Adam, great band! It's a crying shame they disbanded as early as they did.



because I'm not that quick, I have only gradually grasped the point people have made about the dealer not even being willing to give up his profit. i think it's important enough to be underlined.

for those who are similarly dim, look at it this way:

dealer buys items for $1000, quickly resells them for $4000. (these amounts are hypothetical.) shortly thereafter it's discovered that the items were stolen. all legalities aside, shouldn't the dealer at the very least offer to refund the buyer $3000???? that would lessen the sting for the buyer considerably, and yet in doing so the dealer has not actually lost a penny relative to where he was before the whole thing started.


the more I understand, the more angry I get about it. in this case the dealer seems to have decided that the risk to his reputation is less important than keeping someone else's money which (if i am reading earlier posts correctly) he has no basis for considering it to be his! in the first place!!

do we want someone like this in our hobby?

[oldjudge]

Tim-The dealer has already been outed (post 82). No need to be cryptic any more. I'm surprised he has not come on the board to defend his actions.

[chris]

Alright guys, I am B. A lot has been said in this thread and I would like you to hear the entire story, as well as, voice my opinion.

First, I regret the way this entire deal has transpired. Over the past year, actions that I thought were going to happen never have (meaning A actually pressing charges against his brother)

I will keep other parties names incognito, they can chime in if they prefer.

Sometime during the Spring of 2016 a collector, we will call him T, walks into a card shop in West Virginia (I believe it was WV). He meets another so called collector while in the shop. We will call him the thief. The thief tells T that he and his father collected for many years, his father recently passed and now he is interested in selling their collection. I was told the owner of the card shop only dealt in modern cards and allowed the two to discuss a sale/purchase. Long story short, T purchases cards from the thief.

T holds on to the cards for some time then decides to sell some/all to a shop in Cincinnati . The shop owner, we will call him S, is a very knowledgeable dealer who has been around for many years. I have been dealing with him for over 10 years. S purchases some cards from T. S doesn't have a lot of local cliental to sell obscure tobacco cards so he calls me to see if I have interest. I tell S that I know a collector/dealer who may be interested.
At this point I call M and ask if he is interested, he is, and we make a deal. I mail M the cards and he mails me a check.

At this point 3 different collector/dealers have handled these cards. All of us have done some research and valuation of the cards. I can say for a FACT, I did not get these cards at a steal by any means. I purchased these only to help out a collector and then sold the cards to M for a 10% markup.

Fast forward a few months to the 2016 National in Atlantic City. A comes running up to me saying his collection was stolen and M has some of his cards for sale at his table. A asks me where I got the cards, I tell him I bought them from S. I proceed to call S to find out who he bought them from. He tells me he bought them from T. I happen to know T a little so I ask S for his phone number and call him. T then proceeds to tell me he bought them from the thief, the brother of A. At this point everyone involved; myself, M, S and T had no idea we were handling stolen cards.

Myself and T discuss what has happened. I contact S again and discuss with him as well. We all agree to have M hold the cards for safe keeping until we can discuss with authorities on how best to proceed. Although M & I know A, the other parties do not know if this is a hoax or if the cards were really stolen. They want A to press charges against his brother and then they will disburse the monies to appropriate parties. I tell M what has been discussed by the others involved. M makes the decision to immediately turns the cards over to A.

I spent the next day or two at the National discussing the theft with A and try to help him the best I can. I provided him all the parties contact info, gave him names of other shops in the area, as well as, a few local collectors who may have purchased cards from the thief. A tells myself and M that he will be pressing charges against the thief. While he did end up filing a incident report, to the best of my knowledge, a lawsuit or charges were NEVER filed against his brother, the thief.

I was never advocating to hold the cards hostage. I never wanted to keep stolen property - I simply wanted A to actually prove that these cards were stolen by pressing charges against his brother.

M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.

After reading this thread it seems many different opinions, both legal and personal, are being tossed around.

Here are some FACTS that you have not been privy to:

I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%. If M wants me to post my most recent correspondence with him I gladly will.

I never lawyered up, I simply asked advice from a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer. I was not trying to cut off communication with M, he never replied to my last email.

I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.

I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.


This has been a terrible situation for all parties involved. I reached out to A and never received a response. To me A has disappeared, the thief has gotten off with everything and now M and I are caught in the middle.

I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.

I am not sure what Jay Cee is suggesting, I certainly was not having a sleezy conversation with my wife about this. I was upset and unsure how to handle this, considering it was within a few hours of discovering this has happened. To state that publically is complete BS.


M call or email me to discuss or if needed, feel free to make this as public as Tim has.

[Exhibitman]

I love that we just got a Jam reference; well done Adam, great band! It's a crying shame they disbanded as early as they did.

That's for sure, but Paul was burnt out by that point and looking to go more in the blue-eyed soul direction anyway. I couldn't believe that the same guy who did In The City was the guy who did My Ever Changing Moods, but artists evolve. I didn't expect to see Elvis Costello jamming with Burt Bacharach either.

[egbeachley]

So now it appears as though B never had ownership of the cards. He just facilitated a transaction between S and M with a small fee. Acting as an agent I believe.

Still looks like the brothers made off with the cards and the money. And still looks like M shouldn't have jumped the process because now no charges were filed.

[oldjudge]

Chris-I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what proper legal protocol is, but I would think that you should make a full refund to M. You should then go to S and get a full refund from him. S should then go to T and get a full refund from him; at this point T is out his purchase price from A's brother and he should sue him for that sum and press charges. At that point, since A supposedly has not pressed charges, he can acknowledge the theft to the police or reimburse T, at which point T would have no further damages and might drop the case.

[oldjudge]

Eric-I know A. I am fairly certain he had nothing to do with the theft. Also, although it appears that Buckler was effectively a conduit, if M made payment to him I would think legally he had taken ownership and conveyed ownership of the cards (ie he owned them) although such ownership may have been for a minimal amount of time.

[egbeachley]

Eric-I know A. I am fairly certain he had nothing to do with the theft.

To clarify, I wasn't stating that as a deal or agreement on both brothers part. It's just how it ended up.

[BeanTown]

Alright guys, I am B. A lot has been said in this thread and I would like you to hear the entire story, as well as, voice my opinion.

First, I regret the way this entire deal has transpired. Over the past year, actions that I thought were going to happen never have (meaning A actually pressing charges against his brother)

I will keep other parties names incognito, they can chime in if they prefer.


I am not sure what Jay Cee is suggesting, I certainly was not having a sleezy conversation with my wife about this. I was upset and unsure how to handle this, considering it was within a few hours of discovering this has happened. To state that publically is complete BS.


M call or email me to discuss or if needed, feel free to make this as public as Tim has.

The sleezy convo I over heard was you talking to another guy in the isle by your showcase. I was the guy looking at the Cobb postcards which your wife was helping me, as she was working the booth. I had to go look at shiney stuff in your booth, to eves drop better as I know you didnt know who I was. I was there for ten minutes and your wife asked me if I wanted to see anything else and I said I was good. Dealer M knows everything I heard. Glad you came on the Thread Chris.

[oldjudge]

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

Right, when Eric said "made off," it sounded like an accusation.

[Runscott]

Some of the opinions people have are very enlightening - my eyebrows were raised in surprise during most of the reading! Fortunately Peter brought sanity to the discussion.

It was also interesting to read Dan's story, since this is something that can happen to any of us as collectors. I had a couple of unique items stolen two years ago and played scenarios in my head as to what would happen if I found them on ebay or in an antique store. I finally decided that since they were only worth about $300, I would forget about it and never look at anything on ebay that looked similar to either item - basically, I never want to see them again. They were probably stolen by crackheads who threw them out on the side of the road, as they would look like worthless photographs to such people. But thinking this through made me wonder how safe it is to buy high-dollar items - virtually anything could have been stolen at some point.

[slidekellyslide]

Small update on my situation. I heard from the Lincoln police today who told me they still can not locate the woman who sold the figures to me. I asked about what I should do with the items. They told me to continue holding them. They believe that because the guy was compensated with insurance that the figures could belong to the insurance company now but that insurance companies rarely ever try to lay claim to collectibles like toys. They are also checking to see if I fall under the same laws regarding pawn shops. If the original owner wants his items back he can pay me what I paid the lady for them, but since he was compensated he will then have to pay the insurance company what he valued them at. I suspect that since I haven’t heard a word from him that his Insurance company told him this already.

[egbeachley]

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

You are correct, it did sound like I was accusing A as being an accomplice. That's why I wanted to clarify that's not what I meant.

But, I also understand firsthand the dynamics of family when it comes to these situations. That's why M returning the cards immediately created a situation whereby the brother doesn't suffer any consequences.

[autograf]

You are correct, it did sound like I was accusing A as being an accomplice. That's why I wanted to clarify that's not what I meant.

But, I also understand firsthand the dynamics of family when it comes to these situations. That's why M returning the cards immediately created a situation whereby the brother doesn't suffer any consequences.

+1. Understand why M did what he did but not prosecuting the brother will never help the situation.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.


Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

[timn1]

Hi Chris,

That is all somewhat clarifying, but when you say you never definitively said you would not work with Mike on a resolution, you’re finessing the fact that all this happened almost eighteen months ago. How long was he supposed to wait before concluding you were comfortable leaving him with the loss?

Also, I just want to clarify to everyone here that Mike DID NOT ask me to post this information. He has been avoiding going public in the hopes that a resolution could be reached. But as I mentioned, it has been almost eighteen months and I had to conclude that neither B nor A was going to do anything for Mike.

Tim


Alright guys, I am B. A lot has been said in this thread and I would like you to hear the entire story, as well as, voice my opinion.

First, I regret the way this entire deal has transpired. Over the past year, actions that I thought were going to happen never have (meaning A actually pressing charges against his brother)

I will keep other parties names incognito, they can chime in if they prefer.

Sometime during the Spring of 2016 a collector, we will call him T, walks into a card shop in West Virginia (I believe it was WV). He meets another so called collector while in the shop. We will call him the thief. The thief tells T that he and his father collected for many years, his father recently passed and now he is interested in selling their collection. I was told the owner of the card shop only dealt in modern cards and allowed the two to discuss a sale/purchase. Long story short, T purchases cards from the thief.

T holds on to the cards for some time then decides to sell some/all to a shop in Cincinnati . The shop owner, we will call him S, is a very knowledgeable dealer who has been around for many years. I have been dealing with him for over 10 years. S purchases some cards from T. S doesn't have a lot of local cliental to sell obscure tobacco cards so he calls me to see if I have interest. I tell S that I know a collector/dealer who may be interested.
At this point I call M and ask if he is interested, he is, and we make a deal. I mail M the cards and he mails me a check.

At this point 3 different collector/dealers have handled these cards. All of us have done some research and valuation of the cards. I can say for a FACT, I did not get these cards at a steal by any means. I purchased these only to help out a collector and then sold the cards to M for a 10% markup.

Fast forward a few months to the 2016 National in Atlantic City. A comes running up to me saying his collection was stolen and M has some of his cards for sale at his table. A asks me where I got the cards, I tell him I bought them from S. I proceed to call S to find out who he bought them from. He tells me he bought them from T. I happen to know T a little so I ask S for his phone number and call him. T then proceeds to tell me he bought them from the thief, the brother of A. At this point everyone involved; myself, M, S and T had no idea we were handling stolen cards.

Myself and T discuss what has happened. I contact S again and discuss with him as well. We all agree to have M hold the cards for safe keeping until we can discuss with authorities on how best to proceed. Although M & I know A, the other parties do not know if this is a hoax or if the cards were really stolen. They want A to press charges against his brother and then they will disburse the monies to appropriate parties. I tell M what has been discussed by the others involved. M makes the decision to immediately turns the cards over to A.

I spent the next day or two at the National discussing the theft with A and try to help him the best I can. I provided him all the parties contact info, gave him names of other shops in the area, as well as, a few local collectors who may have purchased cards from the thief. A tells myself and M that he will be pressing charges against the thief. While he did end up filing a incident report, to the best of my knowledge, a lawsuit or charges were NEVER filed against his brother, the thief.

I was never advocating to hold the cards hostage. I never wanted to keep stolen property - I simply wanted A to actually prove that these cards were stolen by pressing charges against his brother.

M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.

After reading this thread it seems many different opinions, both legal and personal, are being tossed around.

Here are some FACTS that you have not been privy to:

I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%. If M wants me to post my most recent correspondence with him I gladly will.

I never lawyered up, I simply asked advice from a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer. I was not trying to cut off communication with M, he never replied to my last email.

I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.

I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.


This has been a terrible situation for all parties involved. I reached out to A and never received a response. To me A has disappeared, the thief has gotten off with everything and now M and I are caught in the middle.

I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.

I am not sure what Jay Cee is suggesting, I certainly was not having a sleezy conversation with my wife about this. I was upset and unsure how to handle this, considering it was within a few hours of discovering this has happened. To state that publically is complete BS.


M call or email me to discuss or if needed, feel free to make this as public as Tim has.

[pokerplyr80]

Hi Chris,

That is all somewhat clarifying, but when you say you never definitively said you would not work with Mike on a resolution, you’re finessing the fact that all this happened almost eighteen months ago. How long was he supposed to wait before concluding you were comfortable leaving him with the loss?

Also, I just want to clarify to everyone here that Mike DID NOT ask me to post this information. He has been avoiding going public in the hopes that a resolution could be reached. But as I mentioned, it has been almost eighteen months and I had to conclude that neither B nor A was going to do anything for Mike.

Tim

After reading through most of this thread it seems to me your friend should have waited before returning the cards until the issue had been discussed with all parties involved. Perhaps if the brother who stole the cards was informed a police report would need to be filed for insurance purposes, he may have found a way to get the money back where it belonged. Assuming he's not still addicted to crack.

With no proof or police report I don't think I'd be willing to issue a refund in a case like this for cards that are no longer in my possession.

[Exhibitman]

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Snapolit1]

wrong thread,.

[Leon]

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him immoral or unethical. He was entirely innocent and has suffered a significant financial loss.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to?

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

[ALR-bishop]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective :)

But Leon's post is pretty weird

[the-illini]

So A has his cards, the original thief has his money, B has his money and M has the knowledge he did the ethically correct thing.

You can’t spend it or collect it but M has my respect.

Chris Bland

[Leon]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective :)

But Leon's post is pretty weird

Weird? Well, I guess quoting law that could apply to this case is sort of weird to some. Maybe it's only weird to non-Native Texans, which I am not.

And I agree with Chris's post right above this one too. M did the right thing.

[Gradedcardman]

It is a family issue. I would feel bad for the original owner but that's a family issue now.

[the-illini]

A doesn’t have to file charges against a family member but he had no problem taking all of the cards back and essentially making M the victim of his brother’s theft.



No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[timn1]

Yes, why not, Chris? Why not at least return half of Mike's loss to him? Can you provide a clear and simple explanation to your customer base how you justify not doing this?

And to Zach Rice: why not offer Mike some of the T209s he had wanted for his own collection when he bought the cards? Isn't that the least you could do, considering [B]how much expense and effort he went to in getting your cards back for you?

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[drcy]

M would have the legal claim against B for refund (I'm not saying criminal, just for a refund), EXCEPT there appears to have been no formal evidence (police report, insurance claim) of the original theft.

I agree with the poster who said, when you no longer have the cards, there had better be significant proof of the original theft before giving refund to A. And M would need this to get his refund from B. If there is now proof the items were originally stolen, then he has legal claim for the refund.

I understand sentiments about ethics, but one reason to follow what the law prescribes is when you don't things can get messed up as here. One reason for laws is to have a clear step-by-step path for how a situation like this can be neatly cleared up. The law here says where the stolen items go, who gets refund and has claims against who. A problem is two people here skipped what I (and the law) think are important steps. Further, I think the law in this situation leads to an ethical resolution-- and it was the skipping of steps that led to the current inequity.

[Peter_Spaeth]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

We had this discussion before in the context of the NYPL. Posts 16-18 I think. To be estopped, the silent person needs to have intended to disadvantage another.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=242303&highlight=estoppel

[Michael Peich]

My name is Mike Peich, and I am M in Tim Newcomb’s post. There are a few basic facts that I want to establish before I respond to Chris Buckler’s request that I “make this as public as Tim has.”

Facts:
1. A is Zach Rice. His cards were stored at his grandfather’s house in Ohio and they were stolen by his brother Max. Max sold many of the cards, including a group of 122 T210s, 73 T209s and a Texas Tommy, directly to the dealer Mr. Buckler identifies as T. T apparently contacted Mike Siska, S, and sold the cards to him. Mr. Buckler purchased the T210s and T209s from Mr. Siska, and agreed to accept the Texas Tommy on consignment from him.

2. On about May 12, 2016 Mr. Buckler contacted me and offered to sell me 73 T209s. I asked him how he acquired the cards and he replied that a “picker” friend of his, presumably Mr. Siska, found them somewhere in Kentucky and offered them to him. He also mentioned that Mr. Siska might have some T210s for sale and I told him I was interested in those as well. Mr. Buckler assured me that Mr. Siska was an honest fellow. He sent rough scans of the cards and we agreed upon a price of $1700 for the 209s. On May 14, 2016 I sent him a check (#5512) for the cards. My intent was to keep a few of them for my set, offer some to other T209 collectors, and sell the rest at the National where I had a booth with Tim Newcomb and Chris & Bill Bland.

3. On about May 24, 2016 Mr. Buckler called and said that Mr. Siska would sell the T210s and offered me the 122 cards and sent scans. On May 26, 2016 I sent him a check for $2000 (#5217).

4. Shortly after I received the T209s I sold 17 of them to three collectors I knew.

5. On the first day of the 2016 National Zach came to our booth where Tim was the only one present. He began looking at the 209s and 210s and asked Tim where I got the cards. Tim told him from Mr. Buckler, and at that point Zach stated that they were his cards. Tim called me and on my way back to the table I met Zach and we returned to our booth where he began to show me scans of the cards that were stored on his phone. It was clear to me that they were Zach’s cards, and I immediately pulled them from my case. Zach and I agreed that he would contact his grandparents, and we would both talk with Mr. Buckler.

6. In the ensuing few days Zach discovered from his grandparents that his entire collection was missing. What I had was one portion of that collection.

7. I decided that the correct thing to do was return the cards I had for sale to Zach, return the cards I had put into my collection, and retrieve the 17 209s I had sold. An attorney friend I contacted told me that even though I had paid for the cards, they were stolen goods and belonged to Zach.

8. With Zach present I made a list of the cards I returned to him, a list of the cards in my collection, and a list of the cards I had sold.

9. Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email.

10. I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska.

11. When I returned home I immediately contacted the three people to whom I sold the 209s, explained what had happened, offered to reimburse them for the cards, and asked that they return the cards so I could give them to Zach. They all understood. I returned their money, the cards were returned to me, and I mailed the cards to Zach along with the cards I had placed in my collection.

12. On Sept. 20, 2016 I sent Mr. Buckler an email informing him that Zach had filed the theft report. And then I stated the following (excerpted from my email):
Now that the theft report has been filed, and I have fulfilled my obligation and returned stolen property to Zach, I respectfully request that you please return the $3700 I paid for the two lots of Zach’s cards I purchased from you:
Lot #1: 73 cards from T209-II (Contentnea), $1700.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/14/16 (check #5212).
Lot #2: 122 cards from T210 (Old Mill), $2000.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/26/16 (check #5217).

Thank you for your timely attention in returning my purchase amount
of $3700.

13. On September 21, 2016 I received an email response from Mr. Buckler and I have excerpted the following:
I have spoken with an attorney and was advised that I have no
lawful obligation to issue a total refund as the transaction was not made
in bad faith. However, I will reimburse you the profit I made on selling
you the cards of $400.

I know you are not happy with this situation and I am very sorry this
has happened. The only person responsible is Max Rice, he should be
the one who is punished and pay restitution to all parties in possession
of Zach’s property.

14. Mr. Buckler is correct. After I received his email I have had no further contact with him. He stated he would pay me a fraction of what I paid him and I assumed it would be a waste of my time to try, yet again, to convince him to return the full $3700. (I said nothing to him about the additional funds I had to pay to recover the cards I had sold.)

15. I spoke with legal counsel and after determining the expenses I would incur in recovering the $3700 from Mr. Buckler, I decided it was not worth the money and time to do so.

16. I am not a lawyer. I collect cards because I enjoy the baseball history represented by them. I am also not a full-time dealer. I set up once a year at the National. But on the two occasions years ago when I bought cards from dealers and I requested a return on my purchase, those two dealers honored their guarantee and returned my purchase price, with no questions asked. Based on that limited experience, and not armed with the nuances of legal theory, I made the decision at the National that the only action I could undertake was to return Zach’s property. I felt I was acting properly, not necessarily legally.

I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
1. I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%
He did offer me $400.

2. See #13. above regarding “lawyering up.”

3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward.

4. I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.
Mr. Buckler’s response to my September 20 email requesting the return of $3700 was to my mind a clear indication that he would not “work with me.”

5. I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.
I do not feel the burden of responsibility is mine to communicate with Mr. Buckler. It is his. Further, I did not ask Tim to create this post.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price.

Apart from my wife and children, Tim Newcomb is my dearest friend in the world. He has on several occasions wanted to communicate to Net54 the incidents that transpired regarding the theft and my financial loss. By making this post he has acted out of friendship and indignation at what happened to me, but it wasn’t done at my request.

I have not responded to the thread prior to this because I have been in the Midwest with family (I live in Pennsylvania). For several months we have been dealing with a deadly medical issue regarding my son-in-law. I have not had time to do much else than provide support for my daughter and her husband, so once I make this post I will have little time to respond to other posts. My apologies. I do appreciate some of the kind comments made by posters to the thread.

Thank you for taking the time to read my account.

Mike Peich

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hope Chris will realize it's just not fair to leave Mike holding the entire bag here. The issue isn't whether he (Chris) did anything wrong, he didn't. It's just a very unfortunate situation.

[oldjudge]

Peter-No question, the right thing is for Buckler to return Mike's money. Isn't he also legally obligated to return Mike's money?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Peter-No question, the right thing is for Buckler to return Mike's money. Isn't he also legally obligated to return Mike's money?

I think if Mike were to sue Chris, Mike would win. It's a bit metaphysical whether that means Chris has a legal obligation at this point.

[oldjudge]

If Mike were to sue Buckler and win, would Buckler be responsible for Mike's attorney fees?

[calvindog]

Again, I didn't read this whole thread because I was too busy living but this is all over $3700???

I spoke to Zach after this occurred and I can't imagine not just giving the guy his money or cards back. We've all had the occasional bad luck with a deal and sometimes you have to just suck it up and give back the money -- regardless of what some lawyer tells you to do. Some of us give the money back, and some of us here will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to do the right thing if it means costing them a few bucks. I can't imagine this annoyance was worth $3700 to anyone. $3700, 15K or whatever the number is not worth it for people to think you're a hobby scumbag.

Mike and Zach have always been good guys in my book and their actions here confirm this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If Mike were to sue Buckler and win, would Buckler be responsible for Mike's attorney fees?

No.

[oldjudge]

Again, I didn't read this whole thread because I was too busy living but this is all over $3700???

I spoke to Zach after this occurred and I can't imagine not just giving the guy his money or cards back. We've all had the occasional bad luck with a deal and sometimes you have to just suck it up and give back the money -- regardless of what some lawyer tells you to do. Some of us give the money back, and some of us here will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to do the right thing if it means costing them a few bucks. I can't imagine this annoyance was worth $3700 to anyone. $3700, 15K or whatever the number is not worth it for people to think you're a hobby scumbag.

Mike and Zach have always been good guys in my book and their actions here confirm this.

Well said Jeff

[nolemmings]

No.

Depends on the state whose substantive law controls. In AZ, breach of warranty arises out of contract, and successful parties to contested actions arising out of contract can recover attorney's fees.

[oldjudge]

I assume Mike could sue in PA. Does anyone know PA law?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Depends on the state whose substantive law controls. In AZ, breach of warranty arises out of contract, and successful parties to contested actions arising out of contract can recover attorney's fees.

Well damn. That's an exception to the typical "American rule" still, no?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I assume Mike could sue in PA. Does anyone know PA law?

Why would you assume that? Isn't Chris in KY? And the sale took place in NJ right?

I am told the sale was not in NJ, my mistake, the purchase was made before the show where Zach saw his missing cards.

[rhettyeakley]

C’mon guys let’s get this thing sorted out!

Mike Peich is one of the greatest men I have met in this hobby and his passion is second to none, just one of the most pleasant guys I have had the pleasure of dealing with! Obviously, at this point he is out everything and it shouldn’t be that way!

Zach is also one of my favorite people and the passion that he has had given his age is actually pretty inspiring and gives me great hope for the future! I can’t imagine the feeling of betrayal and surprise that Zach was faced with seeing his own prized collection in someone else’s display case. To me that would be heartbreaking, then to find out it was your own brother that did this is such a violation!

Chris Buckler and his wife I count as friends and I always look forward to my interactions with them every National, he is one of my favorite dealers to deal with and he has helped me out on several deals, often times selling me something I think he may have gotten more money for had he so desired but he was willing to sell to me because he is genuinely a nice guy.

I can honestly see the situation from all 3 perspectives and feel for each of the 3 parties involved!

All that being said... let’s get a solution to this problem. Unfortunately someone or a combination of somebodies will be taking a financial hit. But let’s figure it out, if there is any way that I can help in any way I would be more than happy to do so as this whole situation stinks and IMO there is no clear cut “bad guy” amongst those listed above.

[nolemmings]

Well damn. That's an exception to the typical "American rule" still, no?

Yes, but AZ is by no means alone.

[nolemmings]

Why would you assume that? Isn't Chris in KY? And the sale took place in NJ right?

Of course, choice of forum would not necessarily equate to choice of law, either:)

[Exhibitman]

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

Uhh, I think that one fell about 10 yards short of the goal post.

[oldjudge]

How is choice of law decided in a case where seller in KY and buyer in PA and there is no written sales contract?

[Peter_Spaeth]

How is choice of law decided in a case where seller in KY and buyer in PA and there is no written sales contract?

Possibly where the contract was formed -- NJ

Edit my mistake see above NJ was not the place of contracting.

[nolemmings]

That can be very complicated, Jay. Assuming the forum state follows the Restatement of Conflicts of Laws ( I do not know how many or which ones do), then here's a good place to start looking:

s 188. LAW GOVERNING IN ABSENCE OF EFFECTIVE CHOICE BY THE PARTIES

TEXT

(1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in s 6.

(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties (see s 187), the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of s 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:

(a) the place of contracting,

(b) the place of negotiation of the contract,

(c) the place of performance,

(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and

(e) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.

These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.

(3) If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state, the local law of this state will usually be applied, except as otherwise provided in ss 189-199 and 203.

In many ways this may be incomplete advice, and an attorney should be consulted in one of the states with a connection to the transaction. Parties should also take heed that, if a state's law would allow you to recover your attorney's fees when you are successful, it very likely will allow your opponent to recover his fees if he is successful. IOW, be careful what you wish for.

[rainier2004]

Yeah, this whole thing sucks.

If you have never been close to someone hooked to drugs the consider yourself lucky. Its worse than you can image as it rips at you, your family and a bunch of various parts of your life you cannot imagine. Can you imagine being "thankful" they're in jail b/c at least they wont wind up dead that night?

Second, Mike is just one the finest people I know. He values integrity and friendships over "stuff" and it sucks that he wound up in this as well.

For that matter it sucks for everyone in this as none had intentions to defraud to "screw" anyone over when conducting the original deals.

I have no answers, just that I'm sorry for everyone involved and the brother needs to be locked up as he has probably done even more damage since this incident and I'm sure it wasn't his first.

Mike - Good luck with the personal situation, just hang in there. Use your cards as an escape as I now you do. Take strength my friend...

[griffon512]

i made what i think was a good sale at the westchester show today. maybe karma had a part to play, maybe it didn't. in the chance it did, i'd like to repay or pay forward some portion of it in what i think is a worthy pursuit. mike, it sounds like you've had a shit time of it recently and it is undeserved given the positive interactions people have had with you.

in that context mike i'd like to send you $75 as a small fraction of the restitution you ultimately deserve of $3,700 plus the additional money you spent acquiring the cards to give back to zach. an honorable act deserves an honorable response...there's not enough instances of this happening and this time i can have some impact on the outcome. hopefully others will follow.

mike, please let me know what paypal address to send the money to and i will send it tonight. if you don't have paypal, please list your street address and i will send you a check. tim, if mike isn't like to read the remainder of this thread please pass along his contact info if you feel it appropriate.

regards, james

[rainier2004]

i made what i think was a good sale at the westchester show today. maybe karma had a part to play, maybe it didn't. in the chance it did, i'd like to repay or pay forward some portion of it in what i think is a worthy pursuit. mike, it sounds like you've had a shit time of it recently and it is undeserved given the positive interactions people have had with you.

in that context mike i'd like to send you $75 as a small fraction of the restitution you ultimately deserve of $3,700 plus the additional money you spent acquiring the cards to give back to zach. an honorable act deserves an honorable response...there's not enough instances of this happening and this time i can have some impact on the outcome. hopefully others will follow.

mike, please let me know what paypal address to send the money to and i will send it tonight. if you don't have paypal, please list your street address and i will send you a check. tim, if mike isn't like to read the remainder of this thread please pass along his contact info if you feel it appropriate.

regards, james

Awesome gesture...very nice bud. I'm not sure Mike would take it, but its an awesome gesture James.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

[griffon512]

my concern is he won't take it from myself and potentially others. i hope it's not seen as an act of charity. it isn't. it's an attempt to remediate a problem when at least a partial solution is readily available, and ultimately would make me feel better for pursuing it.

[griffon512]

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[timn1]

As mentioned, Mike currently has his hands full with family stuff, plus he was never trying to make this a big public stink, so he may not post much more on it anytime soon. Though he can always correct me, I'm fairly sure he is not interested in suing anyone in any of the 50 states. He knows the amount involved would not be worth the hassles. However, I don't agree with Jeff's suggestion about how the issue is too trivial to be worth having this discussion. Principle is involved.

Here we have people who don't even know Mike offering to defray some of his loss, but the two others directly involved, Chris and Zach, who benefitted from the events and then let Mike do all the dirty work and absorb all the financial loss for eighteen months, should step up and be honorable men about this, and offer to do something.

For those offering money, which is extremely kind of them, I will let Mike tell you whether he wants to accept it. But as his closest friend, I am certain that the lost money has upset him less than the disappointment of seeing two people he also considered hobby friends, so completely fail to hold up their obligation to deal fairly with him when all he wanted was to make a bad situation better.

Tim


Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

[timn1]

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[griffon512]

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

tim, i'm basing that statement on ethical (not legal) grounds on the following:

1. i'm making the assumption based on what was written in this thread that chris did not know the cards were stolen. obviously chris had no control over what zach's brother did.

2. if he did not know the cards were stolen, he did nothing wrong in the act of purchasing and selling the cards.

3. the cost of anyone down the chain -- none of whom have culpability in the theft -- pursuing legal action against those who do not refund their purchase price is greater in money/time than what they stand to gain from a positive legal outcome (best case scenario of breaking even i presume). this disincentivizes them from pursuing legal action. this is a good example, in my opinion, of the legal system not providing an attractive alternative. as mike stated above, after talking to counsel he made the decision that it would have been potentially cost and time prohibitive for him to legally pursue reimbursement from chris. chris would have been in the same situation if he did reimburse mike, and so forth. ultimately the thief is likely not in a position to make monetary restitution, which would have been the ideal remedy of the legal system.

4. given the above, a third party providing partial or full restitution -- i would like to start if mike is open to it -- seems like a good alternative.

i don't want to get into a long debate on the ethics of this, who is to blame, etc. i stated my opinion and i recognize that reasonable people will disagree on a fair ethical outcome.

i'd rather start the action of making it better for mike, and in turn, me. i would feel better if mike would accept my $75. maybe others will follow. improving mike's life after a tough spell is worth more to me overall than the cost of $75. it starts to reciprocate something honorable that he did.

[Kenny Cole]

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

I haven't brushed up on personal jurisdiction recently, but is Chris subject to the jurisdiction of a PA small claims court just by virtue of shipping cards through a common carrier to Mike in PA? There certainly was a time when that would not be enough. If not, Mike has to go to KY.

[Kenny Cole]

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

Could be Kenny, minimum contacts ain't what they used to be.

[chris]

I will try to keep this as short as possible. Most everyone seems to be on the same page; I agree, this is a mess and unfair to leave Mike holding the bag. I am willing to make Mike an offer I feel is fair. (I am sure some of the readers here will feel otherwise.)

I do not wish to argue every point Mike made in his post but I will a few:

9. "Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email."
Zach filed an incident report. He did not press charges or file a criminal theft charge against his brother.

10. "I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska."
I simply stated the two dealers that handled the cards before me, would not entertain a refund down the chain unless criminal charges were filed and Mike kept possession of the cards until a legal assessment of the transaction of events could be legally documented.

"I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward."
We discussed Zach filling criminal charges against his brother on the the phone multiple times. In addition, I worked with Zach at the National and afterwards in an attempt to locate other missing cards in KY and OH areas.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
"Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price."
Absolutely not true. I told him what the others dealers involved had discussed and Mike completely ignored all requests to speak with legal counsel.

Mike, you did have every opportunity over the past 450+ days to pick up the phone and call or email me back.

Here is my offer. I refund you 50% of your purchase price, $1850. As far as the remaining money, I feel Zach needs to press criminal charges against his brother. If that takes place, hopefully, WE can work together to seek restitution against Zach’s brother. Or Zach can pay you the portion to make you whole. I had absolutely NO idea the cards were stolen and I have no control over Zach’s decision to criminally charge his brother. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me, hate me, never do business with me, etc.. you are entitled to do as you choose. Mike, if this is agreeable please confirm your address and I will put a check in the mail Monday morning.

Mike, I am very sorry to hear of your son in laws health. I wish you and your family nothing but the best.

Finally, I really HATE to read some very disparaging posts calling me a scumbag. I have been very active in this hobby for almost 15 years as a collector and dealer. I have NEVER took advantage of anyone. I realize there are people on this board who are fortunate enough to say $3,700 or $15,000 is a small sum of money. Unfortunately for me and many others $3,700 is a lot of money and I am not lucky enough to live such a privileged life as you. Congratulations for being such an outstanding citizen and an overall winner at life. You are free to form your own opinion but I am no scumbag.

[calvindog]

I realize there are people on this board who are fortunate enough to say $3,700 or $15,000 is a small sum of money. Unfortunately for me and many others $3,700 is a lot of money and I am not lucky enough to live such a privileged life as you. Congratulations for being such an outstanding citizen and an overall winner at life. You are free to form your own opinion but I am no scumbag.

I work nearly 7 days a week, every week, and have pressures from my career you can't even begin to comprehend. So any "luck" you perceive that I have is due to hard work and sacrifice. And if JC thinks you're a scumbag that's good enough for me.

[autograf]

I know Chris and I know Mike and I think both are great people. I hope this somehow works out because I hate to see Mike's issue and hate to to see Chris' issue. I don't know Zach nor his brother. I understand why Chris requested the police action and I understand why Zach ultimately reneged. My close coworkers daughter sold off grandmas silver and her boyfriend cut out his catalytic converter for $100 worth of platinum in it. People do crazy stuff. Anyway, hope this is a step in the right direction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am sure some won't agree but I think it's reasonable and commend Chris for coming forward, as I expected he would, based on his reputation. I also think (as I believe Tim originally mentioned) it might be nice of Zach at least to convey a few cards back to Mike as a gesture of his appreciation for Mike's integrity and going above and beyond to recover the cards he already had sold.

[the-illini]

I am sure some won't agree but I think it's reasonable and commend Chris for coming forward, as I expected he would not knowing him personally except for a couple of purchases but based on his solid reputation. I also think (as I believe Tim originally mentioned) it might be nice of Zach at least to convey a few cards back to Mike as a gesture of his appreciation for Mike's integrity and going above and beyond to recover the cards he already had sold.

+1

While I didn't agree with how Chris handled this originally I respect him for coming on here and taking the heat while trying to make things better.

Chris Bland

[Jason]

I think it would be appropriate for Zach to comment on the thread instead of just reading it for the past two days:D

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

[BeanTown]

Chris, Not sure who called you a scumbag, but it wasn't me as Jeff eluded too. I just heard the "sleezy" conversation with you discussing this with another guy. I also thanked you for coming on and posting.

Did, the two other people in the pipeline get named who had some or all of the stolen collection, before Chris got involved? Where is Zach's Brother at now, as this happened a couple years ago. Maybe he is on the road to recovery.

[timn1]

For making a fair offer to share the burden with Mike, which is what I have been hoping for .

I want to make it clear to you and to everyone that I never sought to portray you as dishonest or a scumbag, etc. There is too much of that kind of junk talk around already. I just didn’t want to see mike get stuck with the whole burden.

Now, where is Zach in all this?

+1

While I didn't agree with how Chris handled this originally I respect him for coming on here and taking the heat while trying to make things better.

Chris Bland

[calvindog]

Chris, Not sure who called you a scumbag, but it wasn't me as Jeff eluded too. I just heard the "sleezy" conversation with you discussing this with another guy.

Correct, my apologies. "Sleezy" (sic) but no scumbag. And I didn't say he was a scumbag, just that for $3700 of money made off stolen goods, this would cause people to think that. Based on the number of posters who claimed they wouldn't do business with Chris again and Tim's question if we even wanted someone like this in our hobby, my admonition seems accurate.

[Michael Peich]

I agree with Chris Bland and others that Chris Buckler has willingly come to the forum to present his sense of the matter, and he is to be commended for that. I wrote him this morning and accepted his offer of $1850.

Regards,
Mike

[Peter_Spaeth]

Call the next case. :)

[Exhibitman]

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't know, Adam. Example. As we know, under the statute of frauds, I can't enforce a contract for the sale of goods over $500 (never mind the exceptions, irrelevant to the point) without a writing signed by the other party. So under the law, the other party can breach with impunity if he knows there is no such writing. But wouldn't you say it's still unethical to breach the contract, or at least that there's a substantial consensus that would say it is? Perhaps you would not.

[glynparson]

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

I am not loosely using any term, I am using the term the professions and organizations themselves use. A quick google search turns up dozens of examples. If you want to argue that if you have a Code of Ethics you are essentially turning them into regulations it might be debatable, but it's hardly like I'm making up the term.

[bigfish]

Glad to see Mike get some of his money back.

[Michael Peich]

In my last post on this matter I mentioned that I accepted Chris Buckler’s offer to refund me $1850, half of my loss for the stolen Zach Rice cards I purchased from Chris.

True to his word Chris mailed me a check for $1850 and it has cleared my bank.

With this payment my dispute with Chris over reimbursement for the stolen Zach Rice T209s and T210s is settled.

My hope is that Zach will recover other cards that his brother stole and sold from his collection.

Thank you for the kind words of support many of you offered.

Regards,
Mike

[Jason]

im glad you were able to come to a resolution on this matter Mike. I hope Zach gets all of his cards back as well and that we hear from him one day about the final outcome.

[jefferyepayne]

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.

Good for you, Glyn. You and your family did the RIGHT thing.

jeff

[Kevin Savage]

After reading most of this thread- I am glad Mike and Chris were able to work something out. I consider both friends- and know neither want to handle stolen property or profit from it.

In my opinion they both are trying to do the right thing- and that is admirable.

I am always doing my best to make sure when we buy cards and buy collections- that we are buying from the rightful owner. This is a great reminder of the mess that can take place if we make the wrong purchase- no matter how removed you are from the theft and that first sale.

In the end the collectors' brother is the thief here- and in my opinion- that is where 100% of the blame should rest. He knew the cards were not his. Mike and Chris bought them in good faith. From what I know of the case- they both have gone above and beyond the moral duty in this one.