T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Reasonableness of reliance is always an issue for the jury (proving reasonable reliance is one of the elements of the tort), but is relatively easy to overcome in a situation where a purported expert makes a material representation of fact supposedly based on his thorough investigation of the facts. In this case it would be less of an issue because the basic cause of action would be rescission, which could be for misrepresentation or material mistake. If the card isn't unique, the materiality of the mistake is apparent.

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Adam whle I generally agree with your assessment of reasonable reliance in the context of a representation by a purported expert, I think it is a much harder question given the highly unusual nature of the representation at issue, namely that there are no other cards on earth of the same type as the one for sale. Expertise seems to me to give way to common sense here: what rational person, especially a presumably sophisticated buyer, could reasonably believe such a representation? Would anyone here have relied on Brian Drent for the proposition that the Jackson was unique, for example?

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>If this Jackson is ungraded, and therefore no presumptive way to have an objective catalogue, i.e. the PSA Pop report, to track the number of issues available, how can anyone make the claim that this card is one of a kind? <br />I mean, isn't it possible that there are several more of these Jacksons stored in safes, boxes, desks, drawers, all over the country? MH, or any auction house for that matter, seems to have no way to tell that the card they offered is the only one in existence. <br />And as we have discovered, it is not.<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Josh, you are right, but which way does it cut is the interesting question. Does it mean Brian had no right to make the statement, or does it mean noone could reasonably have relied on the statement? Or both?

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Peter, <br />I think the reasonable prudent person in the buyer's position (who happens to have $100K to spend on a baseball card) should probably know that just because the auction house says the T5 is the only one out there, doesn't exactly make it so. <br />Is this just puffery by the auction house? I don't think so, because as king put it, the first line states as fact that this card is the only one in existence. If the auction house said "it's the only known Jackson as of the date of this printing" then this whole problem could have been avoided. See, it's all about the drafting.<br />In the end, I think it's a question of reliability for the jury to decide! <br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>So true. I cannot count the number of cases I have been involved in that resulted from ambiguously worded contracts. Brian also could have said, based on my due diligence which included the following, to the best of my knowledge it is the only one in existence. But I guess this is all hindsight, and at the time it probably seemed highly unlikely anything would come along to show that the more aggressive statement (if one interprets it as a factual statement that the card was unique) was false.

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>the item description could have misled a somewhat educated buyer

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>The lot description specifically recognizes the fact that cards usually cannot be deemed "unique." But it then goes on to say that this case is the exception and the seller has done the research to prove it. I'd say that's a huge point in the buyer's favor in any lawsuit, even though I agree that any buyer who believed the description was guilty of a little wishful thinking.<br /><br />I also think that the fact that T5s typically are NOT unique is another point in the buyer's favor. If an auction house said that an Alpha or an Allegheny was unique, every sophisticated buyer knows exactly what that statement is based upon, and knows that there is some small possibility of duplicates showing up. But there is no similar story of uniqueness behind the T5 set. So the seller's claim of "due diligence" adds something to the equation. It tells buyers that the seller has done some research on this specific card that is not widely known and that this research has led the expert seller to the conclusion that the card is unique.

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Unique is a tricky area. If I say there are 4 or 5 known of something and it turns out there are 7, nobody cares. But if I call something unique and there are two, then it becomes sticky. Of course, what is the definition of due diligence when there are collectors who own things they keep secret and don't want others to know about. If there are ten T5 Jacksons and the nine other collectors have kept that private, you can be sure a reported price of 180K will shake a few of those out. I don't think the buyer has any recourse, if the auction house genuinely was not aware of other examples. If they were deliberately holding back information and it could somehow be proven, that is something else.

T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425
 

Posted By: <b>Preece1</b><p>Since I have been asked this question by over a dozen collectors over the last 2 weeks, I wanted to let everyone know that I DID NOT purchase either of the T5 Jackson cards. I am primarily a 19th century guy <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>