Fitl vs. Strek Altered Mantle

[t206trader]

As someone currently dealing in sports law I found this case extremely interesting and relevant to a lot of what is happening in the hobby currently. Anyone remember this case or have any additional information they could share outside of the reporters? Trying to do a case analysis and any anecdotal information could help. If you are unfamiliar with the case please check it out: http://www.law.unlv.edu/faculty/rowley/Fitl.pdf

Thanks!

[pawpawdiv9]

2 years after it was bought, then sued him for it being altered and touched-up and that PSA didnt grade it
Geez!!!! He bought a 52 RC mantle raw???

[David W]

Originally Posted by pawpawdiv9

2 years after it was bought, then sued him for it being altered and touched-up and that PSA didnt grade it
Geez!!!! He bought a 52 RC mantle raw???

Grading was in it's infancy in 1995....... almost nothing was sold graded

[steve B]

hmmm......An altered 52 Mantle is worthless.....

I'll take it! I might even pay $10, $20 If I've had a good week.

seriously, I'm amazed the defense didn't dispute that.

Steve B

[savedfrommyspokes]

I wonder what ever happened to the card itself....is it still out their circulating?

A defense strategy seemingly would have been to question the fact if this altered Mantle was indeed the identical card that was originally sold to the buyer.

[bigtrain]

Two things jumped out at me in reading the court's opinion. First, the assertion that an altered 52 Mantle has no value. Obviously untrue. Second, that a lifetime guarantee is the standard in the industry. I wish.

[t206trader]

To answer a few questions.

Although an altered Mantle does hold some value (and if it's a PSA 8 Wagner a lot of value ), it was not the consideration that the seller initially offered the buyer. Since the seller maintained that the card was in "near mint condition" the card must present as such or a breach has occurred. Additionally since the seller was considered an "expert" and the buyer someone unfamiliar with the industry the court gave the buyer the benefit of the doubt.

Savedfrommyspokes makes a valid defense argument, but unfortunately the defendant agreed that the card was the same card sold and instead sought a sort of "silence is acceptance" style defense. I too find the courts decision a little too favorable to the plaintiff. If the case occurred today, I think the courts decision would likely swing the other way. Far too many authenticators and graders to raise the "I didn't know" argument.

[nolemmings]

The most important thing I noticed was that Strek did not bother to appear and give testimony.

In a trial to the court, Fitl appeared with counsel and offered evidence. Strek was represented by counsel but did not appear or offer any evidence.

Strek claimed via his correspondence to Fitl that if Strek had received notice earlier, he could have contacted the person who sold him the baseball card to determine the source of the alteration, but there is no evidence to support this allegation. In fact, Strek offered no evidence at trial. His letter is merely an assertion that is unsupported.

The trial court thus had little choice--even if defense counsel poked holes in some of the Plaintiff's testimony-- so long as enough remained to establish the salient points then the only evidence presented weighed in favor of Plaintiff. There is only a preponderance of evidence standard; i.e. more likely than not, so the Plaintiff was nearly certain to carry the day on the facts. Strek should have spent the price of a plane ticket and taken the stand to offer his side, IMO. The only issue presented on appeal was whether the 2 year delay made the claim time-barred under the applicable law and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in answering this question in the negative. There really was nothing else to review.

The issue of whether a tainted Mantle is worthless is a red herring here. The judgment did not hinge on value, and even if the Court found that the altered Mantle was worth something, it is beyond dispute that the card was worth less than an unaltered example. The Plaintiff sued for benefit of the bargain damages, meaning he wanted the appreciation associated with the FMV of a "true" Mantle at the time of trial, which was likely much more than he paid for it. The judgment, however, essentially gave him rescissory damages--he got back what he paid for it. I assume he returned the card to Defendant if/once he was paid on the judgment--he and his lawyer would have a hard time explaining why they should keep both the card and the purchase price and/or why they would object to the return of something they claimed was worthless.