Scenario~Your Opinions
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Your argument assumes that the card is trimmed and therefore that Lew made a false representation and therefore must refund on it regardless of the contractual preconditions, on the basis of a tort claim. However, as already pointed out, whether the card is trimmed can only be proven by expert testimony given the fact that no one saw the card as issued and no one saw it altered. The question of trimming is debatable; Lew says no, a nameless, faceless person at SGC says yes. None of us have seen it, so we cannot state any view at all with any reliability. <br /><br />Moving on to the second argument, to establish an extra-contractual basis for liability (i.e., fraud or negligent misrepresentation), you would have to prove that the auctioneer knew the card was altered (fraud) or said it was not altered without any reasonable basis for so stating (neg misrep). Neither scenario applies here; the auctioneer accurately disclosed the size issue and opined based on his firsthand viewing of the card that the card was not trimmed. The buyer's choice of expert says the card is trimmed. I see a dispute between experts, not an actionable misrepresentation. <br /><br />I again return to the essential issue: slabbing. If you buy a short card at a discount to market and hope to slab it, you are knowingly taking a HUGE risk that the short card will be rejected as a matter of course by the slabber, even if it isn't trimmed. <br /><br />And finally, while you would not have to see the tree in the forest to determine that it is down, you would have had to see it fall to conclusively determine whether it fell or was pushed. Otherwise, you would have to evaluate the evidence and try to reconstruct the event. You have to be careful of leaping to conclusions about causation when the effect is all that is visible.

Scenario~Your Opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Of course I assumed the card was trimmed, for purposes of discussion only, for if it is not, this thread is moot. If the buyer has a good-faith basis to believe the card was trimmed, he gets in the Courthouse. He then has to prove that it was trimmed and certain other elements in order to get the relief he seeks, but that's why we have trials. <br /><br />You have misstated the law, at least here in Arizona. Again and ad nasuem, I infer and imply nothing as it relates to this particular card. However, a seller cannot escape liability for negligent misrepresentation by simply stating he had a reasonable basis for making his remarks. The test is under the circumstances, should he have known the true facts? As importantly, a buyer can recover for innocent misrepresentation, with an even lesser standard of seller scienter, if he is seeking rescission relief. <br /><br />Actually, this may not be way far off from Scott Forrest's thread about having acquired some forgeries from a board expert. Not saying that this happened to Scott and this is purely illustrative, but suppose the seller there says these postcards are definitely the real deal, I know they measure slightly off, or that the thickness is a little off, but they are definitely real. Well, let's say they aren't real at all, and much time has passed before Scott discovers this. What, he's screwed? The seller is "saved" from his false statement because of some disclaimer language to the effect "I told you they were short, thin, etc". Sorry, good luck getting that by a Judge in Phoenix.

Scenario~Your Opinions
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am stepping knee deep into lawyer territory here but don't you think a case could be made for the following arguments:<br /><br />1. Card is advertised as short (expert seller says definitely not trimmed though).<br />2. Card ends up selling in auction for less than 50% of market value due to being short AND advertised as such.<br />3. Time has expired on return policy<br /><br />Don't you think the totality of these circumstances would make a good argument for no refund? I would think #2 would win the case?<br /><br />regards <br />moderator dude aka sea-lawyer

Scenario~Your Opinions
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I am taking no one's side and I have no opinion as to whether or not the card is trimmed ...<br /><br />... but, if a card is judged trimmed, the judge still might not award any money or return to the defendant if he paid a deeply discounted price. If you pay $100 for a card that is worth $100, a judge is going to ask "So what's the problem?"

Scenario~Your Opinions
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>The issue has come up before about the "clock is running" refund policy. If you buy a card from any vintage card luminary who is very well known in the hobby and he says the card is not trimmed while you receive the card and instantly can tell that is, would you not want some kind of corroboration of your position. A case in point is a 1915 Cracker Jack I purchased from a well known dealer. It looked exmt but when I received it, I could see the top edge had likely been trimmed and there was a "bat ear" on the right corner. I immediately sent it off to SGC and it came back "trimmed." Since it takes a while to ship, receive, grade, re-ship and re-receive, I was outside the designated time limit. The seller was someone I had bought cards from before and perhaps because of that, he cordially refunded my money upon receipt of the card, although he disagreed with the trimmed assessment. Later I saw the card on ebay along with several other nice Cracker Jacks and there was no disclaimer so I guess he truly felt it was o.k. <br />I guess the point I am making in my rambling non-legalese way is that, while I think a long delay in asking for a refund and returning the card is certainly unreasonable, I think that a quick reply followed by a reasonable amount of time for a submission and return, is not stretching the parameters of due diligence. For the guy who is just an average card collecting Joe, getting an opinion from SGC to corroborate your own independently formed opinion, seems reasonable.