Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Someone owns a baseball card. That's legal. They do something to it to enhance its appearance. That's legal. The consistent theme of your responses seems to be, if what was done to improve its appearance is disclosed, no problem.
But if nothing of that nature is committed to paper, couldn't it come down to:
Card Doctor : I told them I was improving the cards appearance some.
Auctioneer: I don't remember him saying that (or) I didn't know altering is what he meant.
Basically, He Said, He Said. Then then the card is sold to a third person, because of the claimed confusion above, no mention of "enhancements" is communicated to the current owner of the card, and now its circulating out there.
Thanks again for your thoughtfulness in this conversation. It's so nice to catch a break from the snarkiness, once in awhile.
And again I am not suggesting nothing wrong was done, and I appreciate the fact you get that.
|
Just because there was confusion between the two parties involved on the selling end doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to disclose. It may muddy the waters as to who is more culpable, but fraud has still occurred.