Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
It's meaningless in my opinion because THEY control the determination of whether the card sent back to them is altered or not. As we saw in the case of AJ's obviously altered Leaf Jackie where they stood behind the grade. They don't need fine print to cap their liability, just their own bad faith.
I do agree with Corey that the cards that have been specifically outed are the small tip of a big iceberg.
|
I agree that THEY control whether a card is altered. But assuming an obligation of good faith is required of them when making this determination and given that in many instances I believe it
can be conclusively shown the card has been altered, I don't think this is a meaningless provision.
Granted as a practical matter no one is going to bring an action unless the claim is astronomical enough to justify the legal expense, but I can foresee where someday somebody might have the economic incentive, and in such an instance this provision could be helpful to PSA. The fact they added it suggests to me that they know the reviews they give cards submitted under the Guarantee are done in bad faith.