Posted By:
JoannAndy got right to where I was mentally headed, which is that maybe any change in value should be considered?
Normally I would say send him his money back 100% and try not to be understandably cynical the next time someone asks to buy on time. However, we are in a very unusual economic situation, and if the item has lost significant value over the time you have held it, I think that keeping 20% may not be that unreasonable.
You could have sold it 9 months ago for full amount at whatever value it was, but instead allowed someone an opportunity to buy a card that he may not have been able to otherwise. That is a good deed, and it's hard to see fairness if your good deed costs you money. I'm not talking about splitting hairs here on any loss in value, just some broad thinking.
In my sheltered little impossible-world, the buyer would be willing to at least have that conversation.
Joann
ETA: Oops. Posted this while James was posting about no significant devaluation. Nevermind.
Edited again, because 'too' is not the same thing as 'to'.