[Exhibitman]

First of all, if the French system is anything like ours, the asset freeze is pending the outcome of the actual litigation; in other words, it concludes nothing. Let's see what happens at trial.

Personally, I side with the dealer on what I've read. Unless he was hired to do an appraisal or render advice, he has every right to make an offer and see what happens, even if he spots something the sellers do not. If they came to him for advice and he gave it, that may be another story. We will have to see what the facts show when they come out at trial.

Not that I blame the sellers for taking a shot at it. With that much money at stake, I would go for it too. Just by putting up a fight they already have a six-figure offer on the table. One could argue that they are using the legal system to extort the dealer when what they really did was make a bad deal. I don't. They have a right to go to court and if they get whumped, they will have to pay the costs for it.

Speaking of which, facts require context and that will only emerge with a trial. For example, not offering it for sale right away may be the outcome of being a prudent seller rather than some nefarious motive. When I get a card I have not seen before, I don't just throw it out there for sale, I research it. I also want to know more about the allegations about what the dealer did. Did he really 'conspire' with the gardener, or did he ask the gardener questions after he already bought the item? Conspiracy indicates a pre-arrangement before the transaction to cheat a seller; asking questions after the fact is not the same thing. Did he know about the testing work, or was it suggested to him by someone he consulted after the deal?

Reading what was reported carefully, it seems to me that the sale price was a shock to everyone, even the specialty auctioneer. 10X estimate is a shocking outcome. The first two houses offered an opinion in line with what he paid as a wholesaler. Then there is the testing. Doing all that testing is not part of normal due diligence but is part of thinking something merited the attention. How that came to be the case needs to be fleshed out, if it even has relevance at all.

I don't think that using superior knowledge is a wrong thing in and of itself. Nor do I think people with equal bargaining power have anything to bitch about when the counterparty has superior knowledge. An expert has no reason to give up that advantage in an arms' length transaction. If someone approaches me with a box of cards for sale or if I find something at a garage sale, my first question is what they want for it. If I think is worth more than the asking price, sorry, I am meeting the asking price and walking away. I might even ask for a discount and see if I can improve my advantage. If they ask me for an offer and I make one, I am entirely unapologetic about it if they accept, even if my offer is low. I know this rubs some people the wrong way and they are entitled to their views and feelings. I don't share them. If you sell something without knowing what it is or is worth, that's "you" problem, not a "me" problem. I've made a few really stupid deals over the years but I didn't consider it the other guy's fault.

One final note: I am always leery of these discussions going into the quagmire of ethics. Not legality, but ethics. I don't think that is a productive place to go with these kinds of discussions. For most situations, there are many different views of what is ethical and what is not, and no objectively right answer that doesn't reflect the speaker's own background and education and beliefs. Some would offer a consignment instead of a purchase to a layperson who has a box of cards to sell., some would offer a cash price. I don't think either is wrong per se or right per se.