[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."