Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I think materiality would be assessed in terms of the customers of the seller, not the world at large. So I do think it's a question of how the hobby views the particular alteration, not the New York City collective phonebook. In other words, context matters.
|
I think that's a fair argument to make. I would be guessing at how well received it might be to a jury, but I do think that the onus is on the prosecuting attorney to make the case that it is a material fact that trimming cards for profit without disclosure equates to fraud. I do not think this is just a given. However, I do believe the fact that a perhaps surprisingly large percentage of the hobby still views this as a nothing burger is a significant hurdle to overcome when attempting to establish this as a material fact. Perhaps there is some precedent already established for the percentage of a population needed to sign off on something for it to be accepted as a material fact, but I think you're likely to find yourself rowing upstream if something like one-third of hobbyists disagree with this claim. If it were more like 3% of hobbyists, then it would be much easier to make that case. But I do think the percentage of people who see this as a nothing burger would matter to a jury.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
As to part one, generally I would agree with that. I would define a material alteration as one a significant portion of potential buyers would deem important to their buying decision. It's not precise, but the law rarely is. So if most people wouldn't care if they weren't told about putting down a corner, not material. If we reach a point where most people don't care if a card has been trimmed, well, I would give up on the criminal law at that point.
|
I think that's fair.