New Board Rule

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

My legal skills don't have to be vastly superior. That's sort of the point which, you apparently haven't gotten. IMO, It's an easy call. When you lie about the cost of the card, and do so to induce the buyer to pay a bunch more, that is fraud. Does that confuse you?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I will make one concession. Perhaps my choice of the word puffery was inappropriate. My point is and has been that even if its a lie, it doesnt amount to fraud and that buyer's have some obligation to do their own due dilligence. Further - my position has nothing to do with my personal opinion regarding whether its right or wrong to lie about the price paid if asked.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Cobby, in many (all?) jurisdictions one could get out of the sale if said sale were induced by fraud such as a material mistatement of fact. In other words, the buyer could get his money back.

Josh, you argued that lying as to purchase price is "far closer to puffery or salesmanship than a material misrepresentation." Since puffery is perfectly acceptable("it's a great card") and salesmanship could almost be an admirable trait ("he's a good salesman"), I too misinterpreted your posts as saying lying is acceptable. I'm glad I was wrong.

Leon, yes I think we agree on lying, the way the rule was phrased it sounded like a "zero tolerance interference policy," a "ZTIP" if you will.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Excellent selection, Barry.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Al- Thank you.

Marcus- Yes, recission is an option, but I was curious as to the litigants' (here) positions re: MSJ remedies. I suppose recission would be one, but that's an awfully expensive vehicle for a $500 (or so) card. Small claims is way underrated...

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

I absolutely agree that the buyer need to do his/her own due diligence. However, I think it is also absolutely important that the seller is honest or, at the least, that they don't affirmatively lie. It seems to me that there is where we disagree. I think I'll stick with my position.

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

Dave-
I do know something about the Mellow-mint thanks. you cant just tell me i have zero knowledge of them (these comments are very juvenile you have stated Dave). if i didnt know anything on the subject then i wouldnt have wrote in the thread of yours.(common sense)

I have been collecting E cards for many years now and have watched the auction houses and ebay closely. I used 200 as an example to prove a point(previous thread).
you paid 228 for the card(which i watched on ebay) i say worth alittle more.

I stated my points with an ungraded card. not a graded card. If you understand card collecting market, graded cards always bring more in than raw. simple fact.

trying to help fellow buyers shouldnt be a crime. like tell people in a forum thread "watch out for this auction" or "this seller".

dave please provide some views valid for this argument


Josh- I have been buying and selling for years. i read on the forums 228 dollars for the card was right or close to my books(would only grade a 1 or 1.5 if lucky). also depends on the card and player. obviously a wagner you state is worth more usually on ebay. All depends on the player and type of card. ie. its the cards like common t206s, and common e cards than ppl buy and make the market by bidding to what they think its worth. your going to have good auctions and bad auctions. cant speak for all the of them of course. thats all i was saying in that statement

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Ken - Actually, reread my posts regarding my personal opinion on lying. I dont think we disagree at all on that point. Again, my comments went only to whether the lying amounts to fraud. You have your opinion and I have mine and I guess you will have to be content believing in your heart of hearts that Im an ass and your imaginary summary judgment brief would just be the bomb.

Frankly, Im perplexed as to what I might have done to you to warrant the personal attacks in your posts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

So much for the reality check.
I'm out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

See my email. We're Ok. But I'm still right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

on second thought...who do ya'll like in the Breeders Cup Classic?

[Archive]

Posted By: BcD

"puffery" is the cheeks on the pompous putz who is attaching you! I have seen it up close.
Here is the model by which his parents genetically copied-

http://www.toonopedia.com/droopy.htm


http://images.google.com/images?q=droopy&hl=en&hs=mMr&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wi





BcD

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

My comments are juvenile? That amazes me. YOUR the one that took the liberty off trashing my thread. Your the one that says now that you do know alot about mello-mints. Your the one that said you posted on my thread because "someone else" said the card was worth $200. If you know so much about them King, what the hell are you going on another person's opinion for?? And by the way, because you were out to protect the "buyer", the "buyer" is a DEALER, not a 16 year old kid in Abeline Tx, not some 68 year old grandmother in Big Fork, MT. The "dealer" is still wanting to go through with this he has not wavered. It's like anything else in life, your at the carlot and the car salesman shakes hands with a customer and says "you got a deal on this baby for $24,900. Are you going to walk over in the middle of it and say "But didnt you get the car wholesale for $17,000?" NO, your not. You just feel you have the right to do it here, and with other's opinions on prices, otherwise you would not have stated that "other board members stated the card was worth $200 on the B/S/T". As far as your juvenile comment, not gonna freaking start that with you, my issue was about this one damn thing you did.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

I agree that misrepresenting the price one paid for a card is a material misrepresentation, but the level of rhetoric in the attack against Josh was quite unwarranted in my opinion, and his comments plainly did not condone lying, but merely expressed an opinion that a court might find the statement in question to be immaterial, or not the type of statement a buyer reasonably can rely on. There are a lot of outs for a defendant in a fraud case.

[Archive]

Posted By: will

Lurker's lament...
Slow morning, so I actually read through all of this.
Lawyer versus Lawyer kind of says it all.
Anyone want to discuss health care consulting?
Just a few simple thoughts -
I have never bought a card based on anything the seller has told me - be it how much he paid for it, the book value, what it should grade - NOTHING.
Fraud, lying, misrepresentation - none of it matters - I have never been forced to buy a card.
Dave - I thought this was Leon's thread.
B/S/T should be just that. Everyone's e-mail is (should be) attached. Per Leon's new rule, just keep all the interference off the public forum.
Leon's old rule - keep all marketing activities, real or perceived, in the B/S/T.

"Please include your email address when you post. Feel free to post scans. Posters assume all responsibility for their own transactions. Caveat Emptor."

Seems clear to me.

William List

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

Dave,
Car lots and internet are 2 different things. i never asked others for advice on that card, and i dont get why your freaking out? did u sell the card? if so why go on about it on this thread. if not well then theres a reason.

your arguments arent valid

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

It's sold, i'm very tired of this subject and done discussing it.

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

take Chill pill Dave, and relax.