New Board Rule

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

After further consideration, and before I read your latest post, my thought on your question is this. I would not think it's interference for someone to come forward with information about a bad deal (in this case a bad card in a holder). HOWEVER, if one is to come forward then they must help the seller, with their knowledge, to get resolution from the grading company. Even if they don't win they must help. If they won't do that then they shouldn't say anthing. Sort of like testifying but not under oath? Doesn't hold much weight.....I know I am swimming with sharks anytime I talk about law, with absolutely no education...but that's how I see it.... (Somewhat the same as anonymity but every case is different)...

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

It would be really lame in my opinion if someone posted information that a card was suspect then won it (or bought it at a reduced price) himself or herself.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

by your apparent devotion to me. Between the unprovoked emails (your last one led to your being placed on my spam list, BTW, so no need to send more), the way you single me out from everyone else in your most provocative posts, and the countless hours you obviously spend tracking my posts and going out of your way drafting your little responses, I must have assumed a great deal of importance to you. As the old ad asked, is it love or obsession? Either way, I'm already spoken for.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Wartslob,

I hope you found the email helpful. Since I cannot email you again I will provide you with a link here. http://www.webmd.com/hw/anxiety_panic_disorders/ty3459.asp And if you ever get done eating you may want to go back and take a look at your posts about me. It seems that you are the one who has demonstrated a very unhealthy attraction to me. You really should seek treatment from a qualified psychiatrist. I have not singled you out however there are not many people I have met, until you, who have left me as nauseated and feeling in need of a shower.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Uh-oh, another fight is brewing. Hasn't the board gotten a little testy lately? Getting back on topic, I think when a third party interferes with a sale nothing good can come from it. It's done with the intention of undermining it in some way. Obviously, if you can protect someone from buying an altered card that you know something about, that would not be considered interfering. But you better be absolutely certain.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Barry, I think we come out the same place, but I would definitely call that interfering, just with good intentions. If it disrupts the sale, isn't the result to the seller the same?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Is the interference done in good faith to help someone or is it done just to instigate trouble? That is the difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

It's funny to me how many people say it makes absolutely no difference how much a seller paid for a card yet support a new rule intended to keep potential buyers from finding this information out.

It's also ironic that one of the main topics on the main board is ongoing and recently closed ebay auctions - why isn't anyone concerned with interfering with those auctions?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Of course it's interfering. That's obvious...but it's interfering for a good reason..Let's keep it in context. I wouldn't want to make the rule any more formal than it is....heck, I'll bet one of you lawyers could charge about 50 hours to write that one .....

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

How about factual mistakes and outright lying?

Anyone mind if I say I have $500 into this card when I bought it for $300 last week. It's the buyer's job to figure determine value and third parties should not interfere, right?

Everyone cool if I say the card I'm selling is the highest graded when PSA has actually graded two higher?

Any objection to my selling a CDV of a common player and professing it's Dummy Hoy? Heck, this can happen (and has) as an honest mitake. Caveat emptor?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Ok, why in the world are you so concerned about this Mark? You never sell a thing on bst, you rarely if ever post on the forum anymore, and as far as I can tell, never respond to any listing on bst.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

BTW, I seem to recall another topic being discussed on this thread before I left work that no long appears to be present - why the deletions?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Methinks we are on one of them slippery slopes lol, Mark.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I haven't deleted anything in this thread...that I remember..(it's been a long day and I wouldn't want to say I didn't when I did...but don't think I did)..there have been no anonymous posts....

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

My bad - It was in another thread that I just found - so much flaming going on lately its hard to keep track.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Josh, I have actually purchased thousands of dollars of cards on BST this year, I just don't mark them with "email sent" like I guess you do. Last week, I sold $725 of cards on BST. Thanks for your concern.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Boy Leon when you start a thread, it gets a lot of action.

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I don't really think it's that slippery unless there are some commercial laws I don't know (which would include 98% of them)...Since we are here I cut and pasted Mark's response so I could answer it....This is kind of fun....




How about factual mistakes and outright lying?

*if you knew for a fact someone was committing fraud lying( sic) then that, imo, wouldn't be against the interference rule...similar to the altered card ruling

Anyone mind if I say I have $500 into this card when I bought it for $300 last week. It's the buyer's job to figure determine value and third parties should not interfere, right?

*see above response

Everyone cool if I say the card I'm selling is the highest graded when PSA has actually graded two higher?

*see above response

Any objection to my selling a CDV of a common player and professing it's Dummy Hoy? Heck, this can happen (and has) as an honest mitake. Caveat emptor?

*buying on someone's "professing" is caveat emptor...and as stated if someone knows for a fact it's not Hoy then they should come forward...but only if sure..

next volley.....

edited grammar and some spelling but still poor...

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

A lot of people on this Board are masters of their own domain. Maybe something needs to change about that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

What if I know for a fact the card was bumped from a 4 to a 5 holder? Is that providing material information or is it improper interference?

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Wow, Im very impressed Mark. I guess you are very fortunate that no one has tried to interfere with any of your transactions. I asked a simple question above that you have yet to answer (as far as I can tell). That is, why should someone be allowed to interfere with an above-board listing (ie no lying, altered cards, etc) simply because he/she believes that the asking price is too high? As far as saying something like "I have 500 in the card" that is nothing more than puffery and if someone is stupid enough to do it right after their auction ended, their rep will get around. Though frankly, to me, something like that is pretty harmless - if someone told me that they had 500 in a card (but really had 200) and they were selling the card for 550 - the amount they had in it really wouldnt factor into my decision. I would buy it if the price was reasonable and walk away if it wasnt. Its really no different than if that same person said despite it only costing me 250, I wont go a cent lower than $500.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Peter,

IMO, a card bumping from a 4 to a 5 is a fairly common occurance and not necessarily due to alteration. I would almost argue that there is a 1 grade deviation in every card depending on who looks at it and when. Now if you had a card bump from a 5 to an 8 and now the borders look thiner and the corners sharper, that is a different issue altogether.

Edited twice to expand on my response.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I would want to know if a card had been bumped a grade, even though in the final analysis I might decide I didn't care. Although I can see going either way on this one. I do think however that it would be hard to write hard and fast rules on this subject. For the same reason legislatures write vague laws and leave their interpretation to the courts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

"Puffery" is a seller's expression of opinion like it's a "really good card." It's legal. Saying one paid $500 when he paid something less is a factual misrepresentation, and is not puffery. If a trier of fact determines that such a misrepresenation is material, then it becomes fraud (illegal). Hope that helps.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Saying you have 500 in a card when you dont does not change anything about the card itself and certainly doesnt misrepresent a material fact about the card (ie its real, its not trimmed, etc) and is far closer to puffery or salesmanship than a material misrepresentation.

I'd certainly hate to be a car salesman in california if you were a litigator - lord knows they constantly provide misinformation regarding the price they paid for a car on the lot. I mean everyone knows sticker prices are nothing but a sham, but for the most part, so are invoice prices. When a dealer tells you he cant go below invoice, but in fact he can because he's got factory holdbacks and other incentives, is he committing fraud or is he being a salesman?

For that matter, when you tell the IRS that your client cant pay a dime more than 50k of the 75k in back taxes that he owes, but you can really go up to 60k to settle the matter, have you committed fraud (if this doesnt work with a tax example, just pretend its any old legal dispute)?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Josh K, puffery is "an expression of opinion by seller not made as a representation of fact." That's straight from my Black's Law Dictionary. Purchase price is a factual statement, the opposite of puffery, not "close to puffery."

I don't know if you really don't understand, but the reason a recent purchase price could easily be "material" is that it often represents what a buyer can expect to receive if the card were sold on the open market. For many collectors, cards are quasi-investments meaning that, while they may really like a rare card, they also might be concerned about getting a fair price. These types of buyers could easily find it material to learn they are paying significantly more than the card sold for the week before on ebay. I'd even go so far as to say that nearly every court in the country would agree a seller's statement that he has $500 into a card when in fact he bought it last week on ebay for $300 to be fraud.

I am surprised that you consider lying about purchase price to be acceptable "salemanship."

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

Listen, i meant that a card worth what u paid. end of story. if you pay 200 for a card and try to charge 400 or 500 for a card when ppl on the BST state its worth just alittle more or less than 200, why do ppl get bent out of shape. merely trying to help the buyer.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Exactly....trying to help the buyer on something you know nothing about. I'm sorry, I won't jump to that conclusion. Do you T206King know about mello-mints to the point of their value?? Since I looked it up on an auction site, and found that there has been no recorded auctions for McGraw, I'm wondering what makes you seem to know what the correct ballpark is for the card??? There was one Matty in a SGC10 that went for right at $800 bucks. There was one common Schlei that went in a SGC20 that went for $255. Other than that for the most part, the only E105's sold have been high end, in the thousands of dollars. However, you King, have the knowledge to say that the McGraw, a HOFer, is a $200 or so....card. That the McGraw if put in an SGC10, which it would be, would bring similar auction prices that the common player Schlei has brought....amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

You found all this out and still had to make a post on the main board asking if you had paid too much?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I found out all this today!!!!! my god. Point is, I didnt know at the time. I also didnt express my opinion on someone's thread on the B/S/T without a bit of knowledge about the subject at hand. Had a wanted to sell the damn card to begin with, I wouldnt have said what I paid for it. King isn't even an expert on the subject. He said himself he wrote that because "someone" on the board said it was a $200 card. I find this so freaking ridicilious that he can express his opinion on the B/S/T thread.. opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Dave,

If your intentions were just to find out information, I apologize. However, posting on the main board and asking if you overpaid for a card and then listing in for 2x that amount in the BST 48 hrs later is going to raise some eyebrows. Its nothing personal; those actions would be questioned regardless of the card, or the owner.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I hope you read all the way from top to bottom. I'm not going through it again. If you or anyone else wants more clarified your more than welcome to email me.

Edited to add- YOu can read my post at 11:45 am

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

What you are saying is I got it right? I actually agree with you on this one. I tried not to but couldn't help it. I think I totally blew the verbiage but had the intent. For all of the drama...the rule is staying the same as I think it's the right thing to do....

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Dave,

I have read the thread, thank you. I am neither siding with you, or against you; I am just telling you why I believe some on here are questioning your motives.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Chris, Dave said earlier that every card is for sale. If people supplement their incomes by flipping cards good for them. If people want to price their cards on the main forum then I guess it is their perogative.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

I'm a civil engineer. I work with numbers all the time. I price jobs, and I manage them to make sure multi-million dollar asphalt jobs stay within costs. Anyone that questions my motives.....delibarately putting the price I paid in writing on a thread, with the pre-conceived notion of I'm then going to go to the B/S/T and ask for two times that amount, doesn't know what they are talking about. As I originally said, I had offers right away on the card from people. One offer, I said ok to...he said give him til the end of the week to make arrangements, and said if I could get more for the card before then, then fine he understood. My only motive in selling the card was when I was approached by that individual for a certain sum of money, and thats that.


Edited to say- My only motive for selling the card was not only when that individual approached me, but I had every intention of sending the card in to be slabbed, and then yes, sold.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

t206king - a card is not always worth what you paid. obviously you havent done enough buying and selling to figure that out. I bought an e93 wagner for 900. I can tell you for a certainty that the card is worth well over 2000. I buy cards on ebay all the time for prices that are lower than what I believe I will later be able to sell a card for.

Mark - stating what price you paid for a card is not a material statement about the card itself. Its a collateral matter. As far as a buyer wanting to have some idea of the value should he/she need to sell it at some future date, that is the buyer's responsibility. The seller is under no obligation to insure that the buyer is getting a good deal. All the seller is required to do is provide an authentic, unaltered card (if that is how the card has been represented).

Further, even assuming for the sake of argument that somehow the buyer does rely on the seller's purchase price (or statement as to purchase price) to determine value, unless the seller is specifically asked for the information by the buyer and informed by the buyer that he is relying solely on the seller's representation as to the worth of the card, there is no way any court finds a seller guilty of fraud for saying he has more in the card than he actually does. If not, then I can imagine the scenerio where I actually over pay significantly for a card and tell a buyer truthfully that I have 500 in the card, if I then fail to tell the buyer that while I have 500 in the card but its only worth 200, have I now fraudulently induced a buyer to overspend on the card despite saying nothing false? At some point, a buyer has to take responsibility for what they purchase. If they are unfamiliar with an issue, its up to them to best determine the value and that should not include blind faith in what he/she is told by the seller.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Bland

Wesley,

My point has absolutely nothing to do with flipping cards. If Dave can find a buyer who would give him 20k for it, more power to him IMO. However, posting a question about a purchase, and then selling it 48 hrs later, could easily be construed as using the board for advertising an item to be sold, something I believe is frowned upon around here.

As I said, I am not siding with or against Dave; he likely just got caught in this situation, but I do understand why it would raise some questions/concerns.

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

I saw the Mello-Mint thread as a combination of Dave pricing the card and marketing the card for sale at the same time.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Did all of that mean that you are saying you can lie, and lieing is not considered fraud?

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Leon- There really aren't enough facts in that hypothetical to make a call one way or another. I think for our purposes, it would be suicide to one's business dealings with others in this (usually) tight-knit community.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I wonder what the new owner of my e90-3 Hofman error would think if he knew I only paid $13 for that card a few years earlier. For those that don't know, final hammer on it, w/o juice, was $2750.00

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Josh,

That must be the defense lawyer in you coming out. This is real simple: If you say you spent $500 on the card, and you actually spent $300, and you say that in order induce a buyer to pay more than $500, that is a LIE. It isn't puffery, because the reason that you have lied is to fatten your pocketbook, they know that the statement is false, and the buyrer relies on that statement when making the purchase. Such a statement is pretty much fraud under the laws of any state that I am aware of. Do you disagree that a false statement, made wtih knowledge, intended to induce the purchaser to make a purchase based upon a false impression, is not fraud?

I don't post here too much anymore, and Leon's new rule is not going to affect me at all. I could basically give a **** about it. But, your statement is just stupid and wrong. Mark is absolutely right, and I am embarrased that you would even try to dispute it. I would get summary judgment on your ass if that was the best argument you could make, and, apparently, it is. If you are going to act like a lawyer, then go figure out what the law is before you say ignorant **** like that. Feel free to respond.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

I'm pretty sure s/he wouldn't care. Most people pay what they pay because it's worth that to them. Econ 1A.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

One other thing Mark, I dont believe that lying about the purchase price is "acceptable salesmanship". I just dont believe that it rises to the level of fraud.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Whether it's Fraud/Misrep. or not (check the new jury instructions in CA), there's always the issue of damages, which is a key element most litigants dismiss and later get pissed off at their attorneys for not emphasizing that to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Kenny,

The misrepresentation must be material. I just dont think it rises to that level. Now, if you feel the need to be more of an ass, feel free.

As for ignorance, the fact that you really believe you could get summary judgment in a fraud case tells me all I really need to know about your comments above.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Josh,

I don't really need to do the ass thing anymore. You have no response, other than arguing that a lie about the cost of a card, intended to decieve the purchasr, is not material, and have done it quite well. I suggest that others might disagree with your take. In that regard, IMO, you are the ass. If others feel differently, that's OK too.

Your postition is that lying is OK if it isn't material. Hello!!! People buy cards based upon the representations about: 1) the conditon of the card; and sometimes 2) the cost of the card. When a representation about the cost of the card is made in order to kick the sales price up, the cost of the card is material. As I said before, I would get summary judgment on your ass if that was the best you could do. Your argument is pathetic.

Kenny Cole

BTW Josh, I have gotten summary judgment on the issue of the existance of fraud once, and sort of got it, by way of motion in limine, once again. You still have to go try the damages, but I'm Ok with that. Nuff said. Have a good day.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Ken,

Im sure your legal skills are vastly superior to all others. So tell me how there is no question of material fact as to intent to deceive or reliance?

Regardless, I have never said that I believe lying is ok. In fact, I state just the opposite a few posts above - perhaps you missed reading that before your tirade. I simply do not agree that a the seller's purchase price of a card is material to the sale of the card itself or the value of the card. Nothing more, nothing less. I certainly wouldnt rely on a seller's statement regarding what he paid for a card as being an indicator of value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff.
What are their recoverable damages and under what theory?