Let's make a few assumptions:

1. Op contacts legal counsel and they sue based upon tort law.
2. They win said case
3. If emotional distress or bodily injury don't exist, and I assume they don't, all the prevailing side will collect actual damages.
4. Assume it is a card that would have graded fair but for the tear
5. Assume the card tore into equal halves.
6. Both of the equal halves would technically grade authentic.
7. Hypothetical value of an authentic grade vs 880 dollar fair grade is say, 200 dollars each half.
8. His new value is 400 dollars and he experienced 480 dollar loss
9. Court finds each responsible to the tune of 50/50
10. His recovery is 220.

Any damage caused by the poor packaging, which would include any damage prior to the package ending up in the OP's hands, would be the responsibility and fault of either the seller or the carrier, and because of the poor packaging I would put that 100% on the seller and zero on the USPS.

Any damage after the card was in possession of the OP is his responsibility.

Had this been me, I would have, first, carefully opened the package without ripping the card. Noting the poor packaging, I then would've examined the card very carefully to see if there was any damage because of that. Had there been, I would've asked for a partial refund commensurate with the damage.

We have been given limited details and no pictures to go on. The OP mentioned no other damage to the card so that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not he is responsible for his own actions of ripping the card.

Mark....come on now...

Which part do you find erroneous?

That the two halves of a $800 card, if graded authentic , would be valued at $200 per half ( I think I said that right) . A$800 card now torn in half is worth $400?? Nope

I totally agree with everything of what you said here except for the following: "The OP mentioned no other damage to the card so that isn't the issue at hand. " I went back and re-read the OPs 4 posts on this (yet again). The OP never indicated one way or another, but many seemed to have assumed he did.

My point here and previously is that the OP is responsible for the rip, but may not be totally responsible for ALL damage. That's just speculation on all our parts whether or not damage existed before he opened the package.

Like I said, those were assumptions. The facts are, each half would grade authentic, authentic cards have value. A court wouldnt go into semantics about technical grade or eye appeal. It would boil down to the black and white facts of what previous authentic examples had exchanged. My valuation may not be right, but only assumptions, like I said.

One thing I failed to mention would be the legal fees. They could ranged to 100k or more depending on the level of fight the opposition posed. Or it could be a small claims deal.

My outline was merely my interpretation of the legal outcome with hypothetical values presented.

Since you say the OP "never indicated one way or the other," I think my above statement "The OP mentioned no other damage to the card so that isn't the issue at hand..." is accurate.

Sounds like we agree. If the OP inspects the card, he may determine that a corner or two was dinged during shipment, and something like that would be damage correctly assigned to the seller. I'm in no way defending the seller for any other damage that may have occurred to the card - but the seller is not responsible for the OP ripping it.

I do agree Mark , that the attorney's fees would be extraordinary, irregardless of the complexity or the validity of the case. Please refer yourself to the lawyer joke of your choice over on the watercooler side.

I can see both sides here; the card should have been packaged more carefully, and that probably would have prevented this from happening. OTOH, my understanding of shipping regulations (lawyers, please correct me if I'm getting this wrong) is that the ownership of the card transfers at the destination; after that the buyer is liable. If I was a buyer who received a card packaged like that, I'd be pretty cheesed off about it too, and if I was a seller and a buyer tried to get a refund for a card that was damaged in their possession, I'd probably fight it too.

In a similar vein, whenever I send a TTM request, I always toss in a couple of index cards to protect the card. Sometimes they come back, sometimes they don't, on a few occasions the player has wrapped up my card and ICs inside my letter of request to further protect the card. Whatever the case is, I always open each SASE like it is just an envelope with a card and no other protection, which a lot of times is the case.

So you order product " X" from Lowe's. It comes in pieces that care normally well encased in styrofoam as they are quite fragile. As you unpack it , one piece falls to the floor and breaks. It had not been protected like all the other pieces.
You don't call Lowe's to complain and get your money back? Sure you do, and you know it.

Suppose in your scenario, you pick up one of the pieces and rip it. Do you still blame Lowe's?

No of course not. But both my scenario and the OPs occurred because of improper packing. If the packaging is so inadequate that it risks damage from routine opening procedure...it's on the seller

This thread makes my head hurt.

Yeah, but if you pop an aspirin and there's a glass shard in the bottle...it's your fault for not having closely inspected the contents of the bottle

$800+

$800+, shipped with no protection.

If I spend that much money on a card and I receive it even in an envelope I'm going to assume that the seller did the right thing and protected it. The last thing I'm going to think is, "I better be careful opening this, it might not be protected". To me that should be a safe assumption, without question. The fact that some are putting this on the buyer is insane to me. We operate in a system of assumptions when we purchase on ebay. Sellers assume buyers are going to pay, buyers assume that sellers are going to ship the item with care. If at any point the item gets damaged, from the moment it's put in the envelope, to the moment it's securely out of the envelope, the condition of the card falls on the seller. If you rip an envelope open and damage the card, because it wasn't properly cared for when shipped, then the blame falls squarely on the seller.

This isn't a matter of personal responsibility, not to me. This is a matter of reasonable expectations as a buyer on ebay. You pay for something, you expect it to be shipped with care. The end result of the seller accidentally ripping the card is immaterial. It never would have been ripped if the seller had shipped the item with care. All other arguments about coffee and the like are just association fallacies to me as they don't have anything to do with the OPs situation.

The last thing you're going to think is that you should be careful opening a package with an $800 card? So suppose the thing is in a top loader, instead of ripping it you only crease it. Do you still blame the seller?

Of course not. Totally different. In your scenario, the seller did what he was supposed to do to protect the card.

I answered your question, please answer mine:

Let's say the card (shipped the same way it was) would have been damaged during shipping by a postal machine. Is it the post office's fault, or does the seller assume liability since it wasn't packaged properly?

That would be 100% on the seller for the poor packaging, as would all other damage that may occur prior to the package ending up in the buyer's hands. I think I've been pretty clear about my opinion on this...............

Once the buyer has it in his possession, responsibility transfers to him. If he rips it or drops it in the toilet, that's his doing.

Look, this is pointless as we simply do not agree on the basic concepts involved. This will be my last post on this thread (I can hear the applause from across the country...)

:)

I gotcha. If the card is ripped by a postal machine because of the seller's poor packaging, it's the seller's fault, but if the card is ripped by the buyer because of the seller's poor packaging, it the buyer's fault.

What is the common denominator in either scenario? The seller's poor packaging.

Hypotheticals work in both directions. I assume you would agree that there are scenarios in which both the seller and the buyer would have some culpability in a transaction that was not completed to everybody's liking. In your view, this is 100% seller and 0% buyer. But, I am sure I could dream up a series of facts about how the buyer received and opened the package, on the one hand, and how the seller wrapped and packaged the card, on the other hand, that could skew you off of the 0% vs. 100% position you've been taking here.

Given the facts we've been presented with (including no pictures or descriptions, etc.), I think it's pretty clear that there are degrees of fault on each side of the table. If I were the buyer, I'd complain to the seller about the shipping, but I'd probably eat the cost. If I were the seller, and a buyer came to me with this complaint, I would offer to refund most or all of the sale price. Even though I don't find the seller 100% at fault, I find it inexcusable to not work to rectify the problem for the buyer.

Sorry, I had an 11:59 tee time
 

Did I miss anything?:D

Yep, Pete finally has posted a pic of the package and we all agree it's on the seller
Attachment 235048

:)

LOL change the dog to this one and I have seen that at my house.:D

Dave, that's the best post of this thread!

There are good members on both sides of this issue. Pete, show the card man!

This is a false analogy. Your scenario has the card in a top loader and this card wasn't. Like I said before, ebay works on assumptions and one of those assumptions is that what you buy should be shipped with care. This entire thread would be moot if the seller had done what he was supposed to do. The fact that he didn't puts the blame squarely on him. This isn't a situation where the buyer spilled coffee on it, or dropped it in a toilet. This is a situation where the seller didn't protect the card AT ALL and as a result the buyer accidentally ripped it when he tried opening the envelope. The seller should immediately take responsibility and give the buyer a full refund. If he had packaged the item properly the card would have not been damaged.

Card packaged properly = no damage
Card not packaged properly = leaving it open to potential damage

This is the seller's responsibility and he failed. He eats the cost.

...less $10,000 in legal fees :)

Apologies to Jeff L, Larry7, AL-R and all the other attorneys on the board.

One time I found one of my dogs with a Schapira Big Show Walter Johnson in her mouth (seriously). It was in a top loader that was damaged but the card was fine!! It happens.