Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>Kyle<br /><br /><br />Im saddened that any of this type of crap happens in our hobby<br /><br />I wish you all the best in 06<br /><br />I of course wish all a great 06<br /><br /><br />I was just peeved at myself for jumping to a conclusion in your previous situation w/o hearing the other persons side.<br /><br /><br /><br />Steve<br />

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>Thanks for your wishes, same to you and your family.<br /><br />-Kyle-

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Dan: you da man; I totally agree w/r/t ending auctions early--it is creepy. I posted some stuff during dime day and I've been deluged with end it early inquiries. Frankly, since ebay tells you how many people are watching your auctions, I would have to be crazy to end an auction early if several people are watching it. I especially have to laugh when the end it early message offers me less than my minimum bid. <br /><br />Lawyers: I have to differ on the evidence issue. Preponderance of the evidence still requires a majority of supporting evidence. THE BUYER HAS NONE w/r/t whether the seller mailed the card and whether it came back. He wasn't there. Only the seller has the info. Anything the buyer suggests contrary to the seller's story lacks any foundation and asks the finder of fact to disregard the evidence. Any lawyer on his toes in court would object to that kind of evidence or argument. Plus, the buyer has the burden of proof. Credibility issues (assuming the seller comes off badly) do not allow the finder of fact to totally disregard the undisputed evidence and find in favor of a plaintiff who cannot otherwise prove his case. Well, maybe in Texas (I hear the common law down there is pretty strange <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> )<br /><br />Joann: Remember this little tidbit: every state has its own law of damages for fraud and most any other tort. There are surprising variants from the "norm" taught in law school.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Hope everything works out well in the end.<br /><br />Adam, I must disagree with your evidence analysis. Fundamentally, the trier of fact is free to disregard whatever the seller says--they may conclude he is a liar. If they do, they have evidence that the card was never mailed. They also have inferences-- from the buyer's testimony that the card never arrived, and from the fact that the seller relisted the card later, that it was never sent. This is all admissible. Because buyer needs only prove that he performed (paid) and seller did not (card never received), he has met his burden of establishing a prima facie case (leaving aside the uniqueness and irreparable harm elements required for specific perfomance and/or injunctive relief). <br /><br />To embrace your analysis, a seller would have a hard time ever being in the wrong--he could just testify that he performed (mailed the card) and the buyer would not be able to prove otherwise. I disagree that the law places the parties in those positions as a matter of evidence.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Joe P.</b><p>1. It's about a sneak undermining an eBay auction. <br />The pot calling the kettle black. .... (Where's Mr Ethics?)<br /><br />2. It has nothing whatsoever to do with vintage.<br /><br />3. It's all about: (A)Grading (B)Slabbing and (C)Flipping, but that's all right because this is more of a grading and flipping forum, and vintage is somewhat of an off topic that happens.<br /><br />Kyle, let me see if I understand this correctly?<br />You want us to feel that you're the victim, and that we should feel sorry for you after the results of your success in convincing a seller to close an auction early? ... <br /><br />Sorry amigo, you can tell your story to current flippers, but not to this collector.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Thanks Todd - my point exactly. <br /><br />Rob - just an fyi - a case does not have to go into small claims court just because it involves a small dollar amount. The district courts of almost any state will share original jurisdiction over such cases. Even if it went to small claims, most state's small claims courts afford a direct right of appeal to the district courts with a de novo review of the facts (which of course means you can also have a jury).

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>Here's the cards and the seller. I had originally bought them for $160. We both didn't know what they were and worked out the deal. Five months later:<br /><br /><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6240741892" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=6240741892</a>

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>Man, 1300 for those was a steal. Just the Jones and the Ruth combined are worth over 2k.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Wow. I don't even know about these kinds of cards, but between the scans (which he organized very well) and the sell price, you must be just sick about it. $160. Wow.<br /><br />J

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Kyle,<br /><br />I'm not sure what those cards are but apparently there are a few people that do. You offered $160 and never received the cards but you did get your money back. <br /><br />My guess is that at least one other person who knew what they were contacted the seller and he got sellers remorse and backed out of the deal. <br /><br />Basically, your offer was only about an eighth of the ending bid from the auction you posted. Do you think you gave him a fair offer? I would be willing to bet that a lot of people are thinking the same thing - you low balled the seller, he found out and he didn't ship the material. It's kind of cheesey on his part but then again percentage wise you really didn't provide him a "fair" offer. Now, if the auction closed at $160 and he reneged then that's a different story.<br /><br />That's my opionion on the transaction. You should have told him to set it up on a BIN that way he would have been obligated to sell it to you - I hope I'm not giving you any ideas...

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>I didn't know those were the Doughnut Co. cards until September... I searched and searched and searched online until one day I trickled across the SGC set registry (was searching for Rockne and Grange). Later I came across an old Mastronet auction and their identities were 100% confirmed. Had I known what they were and their value, I could have offered more. I am being honest here, I would not low ball a person like that. Getting a good deal is one thing, but trying to screw someone out of a lot of money is another.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>The thing is is that the seller said he shipped them the day before he went on his honeymoon. After returning a week later, I contacted him about the package as I hadn't received it. He said give it a few more days, I did, and then he refunded my money.<br /><br />In the end, its over... nothing I can do and I hope the seller is happy, and so is the buyer. I really wanted that Bobby Jones.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Kyle,<br /><br />My apologies. I thought you knew what they were. If you didn't then someone did and the seller figured out that he could get a lot more for the cards. <br /><br />I wouldn't have thought twice about those cards if I saw them.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>rob</b><p>We all know that these are 1937 Doughnut Corporation of America cards. Even with the relist, the cards weren't properly described nor in optimal categories. Still looks like a good buy, given the prices realized in recent Ebay, Mastronet and Lew Lipset auctions (which seem nutty). As for Kyle claiming he didn't know what the cards were when he persuaded the seller to end an auction early, do you really think you're fooling anyone here?

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>Now that I see these cards, I can't believe you offered him 3 dollars a card. Even if you didnt know what they were like you claim, 3 dollars a card ? I am with Fred and the person probably got an email stating what they were really worth. Come on man, not trying to be hard on you but do you really think offering a guy 3 bucks for a babe ruth or bobby jones card was fair ?

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>............and then he (seller) had a sick feeling....<br /><br />Steve

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>I got to disagree with you yet again. <br /><br />I would have had no idea what those cards were (and I consider myself a fairly knowledgeable collector) if I saw them. Frankly, they are ugly as sin and I wouldnt have offered a seller more than a buck a card if, for some unknown reason, I had a desire to purchase them - which I probably never would. I dont think its that far-fetched to believe someone made an offer on the cards without knowing exactly what they were worth - heck the seller didnt know what they were worth either. Its funny, everyone likes to quote "buyer beware" but once a buyer gets a good deal, everyone assumes he must have lowballed the seller. Does anyone think a seller has some responsiblity to know what it is he is selling?

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>By the way, if someone told me their 5 year old drew those cards, I'd have believed him. So less than three bucks for a crappy ruth - sure, I have no problem with that.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Kyle didn't do anything wrong making the guy an offer (leaving aside the ebay rule) unless he KNEW they were worth more, and I believe him when he says he didn't, and the seller should have kept his promise as a matter of contract law. There was no mistake about the subject matter of the bargain, just the value, and in that case a deal is a deal. That said, when you consider all the facts and circumstances, it's hard to blame the seller for backing out, and I think Kyle should have been more understanding about why he did and not tried to get something for nothing.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>what happened to possession is 9/10 of the law???<br /><br />When we want something and it doesnt work out ,sure <br />our natural reaction is to be a little mad. He recieved his money back and maybe given back postage and a 20$<br />kicker for his time. Isnt the end or the world.<br /><br />Children are starving all over the world and......

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Those cards are obscure and ugly. Also, nice to see the new year start in such a nice way--seller reneges, and buyer is called a rip-off artist.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>I'm not mad about him reselling them, they're his to resell. I am more disappointed in the run around of dishonesty. But again its over. Thankfully, as many have mentioned... I did get my money back (less paypal fees).<br /><br />And if theres any way for me to prove that I did not know the exact identity of the cards, please let me know. I had no idea what they were. I searched all over eBay and google for those cards. They're never on eBay, and I've continued to search for them for the past 3 months looking for them... to see if someone had received my package.<br /><br />They were advertised as 1930s, I looked everywhere for info on them. I figured the 60 or so commons were junk and the Ruth and Jones might be worth $100 or so each. Clearly, as from last week's auctions, I was wrong. And if I had known what they were, I would have offered more than enough to secure them, overnight them, etc. Obscure and ugly yes.... they don't even mention the athlete's name on them... which was one of the reasons I didn't know how much to offer in the first place. The likeliness of an athlete doesn't always mean its them.<br /><br />Being called a rip-off artist sure does stink, and I'd be upset if I was seriously being thought of that way. I wish I had more transaction experience with members of this board who could vouch for me.<br /><br />-Kyle-

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>"seller reneges, and buyer is called a rip-off artist"<br /><br />Football player kills wife, and it ends up being an attack on a police detective. That's America.

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Josh K.</b><p>Dan, <br /><br />Much like you will never find a rule that a "tie goes to the runner," you will never find a law that actually says possession is 9/10s . . .<br /><br />Regardless, this does not involve a situation where s/o found something or simply had it in his/her possession and someone else claimed it as their own. This is a matter of contract. An agreement to sell something. Retaining what you agreed to sell is a breach of contract and you can be held liable for it. <br /><br />Now knowing more about the numbers in this case, I would submit that had Kyle actually won the cards for $1300, his damages would be $1140 (what he now has to pay less the original offer). You could even argue that his damages would be the amount it might cost him to replace them (I think someone above said they were worth about 3k) less the amount he should have gotten them for (160).

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p> it goes without saying that ending the auction early with/for an offer is the main culprit here. had the original auction ran its course who knows what the final outcome could have been. The seller would have had less of a discription and possibly some potential buyer/bidders would not have been in the picture.<br /><br />..............or the outcome we see tonite could have happened as well.<br /><br /><br />Steve

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Just out of curiosity... Kyle said earlier that he didn't want to publicize details because he didn't want to advertise an auction he was bidding on. Now that we can see it it appears that was good strategy, as there were only two bidders besides Kyle.<br /><br />I happen to thing most strip cards are pretty ghastly, so I wouldn't have given these cards a second blink and am not even sure if I saw them in my normal ebay crawl. But that's me. Anyone have any thoughts on the fact that these did seem to go unnoticed? And how that is? And were they oddly listed as to miss mainstream contact w/people here that obviously recognize the value now that they see them?<br /><br />I swear I pick through ebay with a fine-tooth comb, and still miss half the good stuff!<br /><br />Joann<br /><br />FWIW - I tend to believe you too Kyle. Maybe you thought they were worth more than $160, but not that much more, or maybe you thought you could catch lightening in a bottle and get lucky if a few significant cards ended up being included - but overall I have too much faith in human nature to think someone could offer 1/8 or whatever, in any good conscience. So I don't think you did. FWIW

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Kyle</b><p>Thanks Joann.<br /><br />I had hoped to find out what they were and make a few bucks on them. $100 here and there can go a long way for me. I am being honest and I appreciate you believing it.<br /><br />-Kyle-

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>joanne.............these did seem to go unnoticed? And how that is?<br /><br />The seller had them in some funky categories. <br /><br />Steve<br /><br />edited to add I'm thinking a non sports category , a 30's baseball and maybe even 1 other would have been better, m or at least more discriptive of what he actually had.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Steve,<br /><br />Yeah - that's what I was wondering. Military, and pre-1950's lots. I don't know what categories people here routinely check. And even in those categories, aren't there advocates within those areas that comb daily listings just like people on this board scour the pre-1930's? I'm just surprised, that's all.<br /><br />I wasn't sure where else they could/should have been listed. Singles 1930-1939? Something else? Where they in the featured section, or whatever? (A bounce-off of the recent thread about who pays attention to ebay special features - did this lot use special features, and if it had would it have been more noticed, even in the oddball categories it appeared in.)<br /><br />J

Opinions on a transaction issue
 

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>Some collectors need to buy a 2006 Standard Catalog and thumb through it. You should know exactly what that set was, it is listed on page 130 in the 2006 Catalog at $4,000 NRMT for the "Beloved Baseball Idol of All Boys" card (Babe Ruth).<br /><br /> From the 1st time I ever saw these cards a few years back, they have stuck in my head because of the quoted value. I guess they do have the value as they all seem to sell for bigger $$ that Id ever expect from that issue. I have now seen 6 examples of the Ruth in auctions over the last 3 years. IMO...... totally Ugly cards, not too rare and way overpriced. Doesnt even say "Babe Ruth" on it, and made a couple years after Ruth hung them up. PS.Im repeating myself... We just had a message board post on these Donut Co. cards 1 week ago (last post Dec.27th). A Donut Co. Ruth just sold on eBay less than 2 weeks ago, and a golfer guy too. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />