some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[ALR-bishop]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

[the-illini]

So A has his cards, the original thief has his money, B has his money and M has the knowledge he did the ethically correct thing.

You can’t spend it or collect it but M has my respect.

Chris Bland

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

Weird? Well, I guess quoting law that could apply to this case is sort of weird to some. Maybe it's only weird to non-Native Texans, which I am not.

And I agree with Chris's post right above this one too. M did the right thing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[timn1]

Yes, why not, Chris? Why not at least return half of Mike's loss to him? Can you provide a clear and simple explanation to your customer base how you justify not doing this?

And to Zach Rice: why not offer Mike some of the T209s he had wanted for his own collection when he bought the cards? Isn't that the least you could do, considering [B]how much expense and effort he went to in getting your cards back for you?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[drcy]

M would have the legal claim against B for refund (I'm not saying criminal, just for a refund), EXCEPT there appears to have been no formal evidence (police report, insurance claim) of the original theft.

I agree with the poster who said, when you no longer have the cards, there had better be significant proof of the original theft before giving refund to A. And M would need this to get his refund from B. If there is now proof the items were originally stolen, then he has legal claim for the refund.

I understand sentiments about ethics, but one reason to follow what the law prescribes is when you don't things can get messed up as here. One reason for laws is to have a clear step-by-step path for how a situation like this can be neatly cleared up. The law here says where the stolen items go, who gets refund and has claims against who. A problem is two people here skipped what I (and the law) think are important steps. Further, I think the law in this situation leads to an ethical resolution-- and it was the skipping of steps that led to the current inequity.