Didn't PSA say in regard to the outed PWCC cards that the card owners should look to PWCC for restitution and return the cards to PWCC? If that is what PSA said, I suspect their rationale is their viewpoint that PWCC was complicit in the fraud (by working hand in hand with the card doctor(s)) and therefore should bear responsibility before PSA.
In the case of the outed Bobby Hull 8 recently sold by Heritage, I doubt anyone could credibly argue Heritage was complicit in the doctoring/regrading of the card. Accordingly, because the Hull case on its facts appears to differ significantly from the outed PWCC cards, I wonder what PSA's position will be if/when the card is returned to them? In such an instance, the card owner should have no problem establishing damages, as selling an outed "8" is a lot different than selling a non-outed "8". To go even further, IMO the owner when trying to sell the card will have a duty to disclose to any prospective purchasers the card has been outed. Good luck trying to get your 78 grand back in that instance.
So what will PSA do? I would think the dumbest thing would be to try to pin the mess on Heritage. Putting aside the legal creativity needed to come up with a theory that could even survive pretrial motions, from a purely business perspective IMO it would be insanity. The value of the PSA brand hinges directly on the cards' marketability. Think of the impact on this marketability if PSA by trying to shift liability to the AHs make AHs worry about their legal exposure if PSA cards they sell are subsequently outed. What might happen? Probably something along the lines of AHs putting in large red print in their terms and conditions that they make no opinion as to the accuracy of PSA grading and that such cards are sold "as is" at the sole risk and expense of the winning bidder. (As an aside, IMO AHs current terms and conditions almost certainly suffice to shield them from liability. But that will not help them in the court of public opinion, and that likely will be their main concern.)
So let's suppose AHs do respond along such lines. Talk about giving a poison pill to the marketability of the PSA brand. After all, how many authenticators get singled out in bold red print in AHs' terms and conditions?
This situation with outed cards and the current questions swirling around PSA is very fluid, and I wonder how carefully PSA has thought about where it could lead. By their public statements, they are trying to give the impression they are not worried. But as I try to show by discussing the 8 Hull, there are a lot of moving pieces. If/when the 8 Hull is returned to PSA, I think the smartest move for PSA is to not look to involve Heritage and instead promptly and without hassle refund the owner the $78k he paid for the card. And if the card owner comes first to Heritage, if I was them I would on behalf of their customer return the card to PSA and put their muscle behind the demand that PSA make full restitution.
|