some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[timn1]

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

And what does M's lawyer say? M paid B for goods that turned out to be stolen and had no value because he was obligated to return them. Why doesn't M have a right to his money back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

More specifically, I believe M can sue B for breach of warranty of title, because B impliedly warranted he had title to the goods he was selling, whereas he did not. M should not be cowed because of what B claims his lawyer told him.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by timn1

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

[timn1]

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.

Originally Posted by BeanTown

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by timn1

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.

Heck, I wanted to come out on this years ago. M was trying to allow everyone time to do the right thing. He asked me not to post so I didnt back then. I will say the B wont get my business either. That includes their ebay auctions and the National. B was more worried about keeping his profits which was a big percentage than taking them back from M. He also said he should have known they were hot as he barely paid anything for them.

I thout a claim should have been made and insurance get involved, which then they would require a police report.

[Kenny Cole]

I wonder if A reported the return of the cards to his insurance carrier who, as I understand the scenario, had previously paid for the loss. If that is accurate, the carrier has title to the cards, not A IMO. He doesn't get to keep both the cards and the money he was paid for them because that's, at a minimum, betterment. I also agree with Peter that an there is an action for breach of warranty of title. When you sell something you impliedly warrant that it is yours to sell. These cards evidently weren't his to sell.

[timn1]

I don’t know whether A had any insurance. You may possibly be conflating my narrative with the one added to the thread by Dan Bretta,who did make mention of an insurance claim. See post 27 above.

[Jason]

Im glad this is finally being put out and talked about. M didnt deserve this and once contacted and told of the hypothetical issue myself I returned a card that belonged to A. That was the end of my involvement in this and I always wanted to know more and see M made whole in some way or another. And with A never coming on this board and thanking M for all his hard work on this matter stood out to me as very peculiar. I mean has he even posted once since all this transpired?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by timn1

I don’t know whether A had any insurance. You may possibly be conflating my narrative with the one added to the thread by Dan Bretta,who did make mention of an insurance claim. See post 27 above.

Ah, OK. Sorry.