some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by timn1

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

[timn1]

He tried. B basically lawyered up and wouldn’t talk to him.

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

M.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

He went to B. B called his lawyer to see what he was obligated to do.

Chris Bland

[egbeachley]

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew or suspected they were stolen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew they were stolen.

It doesn't matter, because they weren't B's to sell irrespective of what B knew or did not know. M paid for nothing. Although I don't love the outcome, because I feel for B as an innocent, B should refund M and go after his seller.

[seanofjapan]

I'm going to be a contrarian and say that I think M should keep the cards.

This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible).

I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss.

M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening.

A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so.

While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss. My opinion would be a lot different if M knew they were stolen or had reason to suspect they were stolen and turned a blind eye to that (ie bought them from an unreliable source, etc), in which case I would say he should absolutely return them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think M should keep the cards.

This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible).

I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss.

M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening.

A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so.

While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss.

You might want to read post 24.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You might want to read post 24.

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

[BeanTown]

A is in the photo
B is not in the photo
M took the photo
The OP is also in the photo

I was at B's table browsing and over heard a sleezy conversation about this entire situation at the Atlantic City National. M knows this as I spoke to him minutes later on this.

Call me W (whitness) and I'm in the photo to!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

M had to give them back. A does not have to wait for the cards to go back up the chain, they are A's cards and A gets them from whoever has possession. But that does not preclude M from going after B now.