Posted By:
davidcyclebackI am not getting involved in this debate, other than saying that it is a standard for a seller to give the refund to the purchaser only. In the fine art world in particular this is the legal standard and procedure.
There are a variety of reasons for this. One is that if a stranger comes off the street asking for a refund, the seller has no idea even if the stranger is the rightful owner of the item. As people on this board can testify, items are stolen (not insinuating or suggesting in any way shape or form that that is the case here). If the original seller was required to give a refund to anyone who came of the street, he theoretically could be required to pay multiple refunds for an item and still not have paid the purchaser.
It's akin to if you sold for $15,000 a used car to a 60 year old woman. If three days later some 20 year old guy who you have never seen before in your life drives the car into your driveway, gets out and says, "I'm returning the car for my full refund." It's safe to say your first words will be, "Who are you?" and not "Just a second, let me get my checkbook."
This should help explain why it is a legal standard for the seller to pay the purchaser, and for the purchaser to get the refund from the person he purchased it from.
Judges regularly say to the plaintiff, "You have a good case, but you're suing the wrong person."