[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

In California wouldn't reasonableness of reliance also be an issue? I still think irrespective of how you construe the operative language in the auction that King just cited (and I agree with you, the key issues there are how close does it come to a guarantee and what due diligence did Brian actually do), a flaw in the plaintiff's case would be that it was unreasonable to assume Brian Drent whatever he claimed was in a position to know for a fact that the T5 was unique. How on earth could he be? You can't prove a negative, at least not this one. That said, I can see a claim that the buyer paid more than he might otherwise have because Brian's assurance increased his confidence that the card was unique although it didn't give him an absolute belief that it was, as mentioned in my prior post.

This really would be an interesting case, no question.