OT- Crazy Baseball Card Lawsuit
 

From SCD online...Is this guy nuts....not for the lawsuit, but for investing 5k in the career of Fausto Carmona?

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...comment-704271

Jeff

Carmona had great stuff, for a short while he looked like the real deal.

Are you sure the original report wasn't from "The Onion"?

I don't know what this guy is thinking. It's not like players dictate the baseball card market. Even if Carmona was good that doesn't mean his cards would be valuable.

If he isn't pitching well, that negates the age argument visa vie card values.

Investing in prospects is by definition a gamble. You don't know what the future will bring with any player. And if all prospects progressed exactly as ESPN and Sporting News expected, there would be no prospect investing market. The volatility and unpredictability is what fuels that area of investing. It's a form of betting.

But 5K????? He wasn't that good!

Jeff

Why doesn't the court slap guys like this back with a "wasting my time" counter-claim?

I would think last years 7-15 and 5.25 ERA and 2009's 5-12 and 6.32 ERA, would have relegated these cards to the common bin already.

Outside of 1 year, the guy has had a well below average career.

Not to mention the dozens of other obvious reasons this should never be a case of any sort.

19-8 3.06 in his second full year. 4th in Cy Young. I saw him on TV a few times and he was really good. Maybe 5K wasn't a big investment for the guy. In any event, one of the stupidest legal claims I have ever seen, I cannot imagine what the cause of action is.

What a nut case!!!

Plaintiff is an idiot.
JimB

Easy. The cause of action is deceit/false representation. Carmona/Hernandez: 1) falsely represented his age; 2) he did so knowing the representation was false when made; 3) the Plaintiff relied on the false representation in purchasing his cards (I have some trouble with the concept that a ballplayer's misrepresentation regarding his age is actually an inducement to others to speculate on his rookie card, but will give the Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion); and 4) the Plaintiff was damaged. Arguably, he's got all but one of the elements of a misrepresentation claim covered.

The real problem is with that pesky other element, the one not mentioned above, which is that Carmona made his misrepresentation with the intent that it would be acted upon by the Plaintiff. Since I don't see how that could possibly be proven by the Plaintiff, I don't see how Plaintiff can show a prima facie case.

What I meant was, I can't imagine what the VIABLE cause of action is.

If anybody has a case against Carmona, it's the Cleveland Indians.....and they already took their pound of flesh, from what I understand.

I wonder if this is the reason behind the fine print on the Topps wrappers? It says something like - "Topps can't guarantee that the enclosed cards will be worth anything." I can get one out and get the exact wording if anyone's curious.

Did he go after Topps first then the player?

Steve B

OT- Crazy Baseball Card Lawsuit
 

I spilled hot coffee on my leg reading this. Do I have a case?

Of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck...;s_Restaurants

Good analysis.

I believe a major problem is proof of damages. Does the phony name hurt the autographs value or possibly increase their value due to the recent scandal? Did the plaintiff test the market before and after the scandal? Does the plaintiff have an expert to bolster his case by saying what these cards would have sold for if the player was 3 years younger? Can the plaintiff prove that the autographs really came from the player? There's probably a myriad of other defenses for damages if one thinks about it long enough.

The suit is absurd because the representation was not made TO the plaintiff, or otherwise intended to deceive the plaintiff, as Kenny pointed out.

I was thinking the same thing!!

Unless Fausto Carmona sold the guy the baseball cards personally, there should be no issue...............period, regardless of the legalese involved.

:confused:

Wow. I didn't know in Ohio all you can sue for in small claims court was $3,000.00?

I thought in most places it was $5,000.00,,,,,here it's $7,500.00.

He should have took it to Judge Mathis :D

Sincerely, Clayton