This sale is way different from a baseball card in one important respect, which is that at the time of the sale neither party necessarily knew what the object was (for certain) or its value.
The dealer obviously believed it was something valuable, but at the same time after buying it got two appraisals indicating it was worth about what he paid for it. This indicates there was uncertainty and risk involved - the thing might have turned out to not be worth much, but it also might be worth a lot. He was taking a chance on it and discounted the amount he was willing to pay to account for that risk. Given the windfall he achieved I think the right thing to do would ge to share some of that with the original owners, but I’m not sure that the courts should enforce that unless therewas some deliberate deceit involved.
This isn’t the case with baseball cards. If a dealer offers someone 150 bucks for a 1952 Topps Mantle, there is no risk like that and the dealer is purely ripping someone off.
I think there is also a huge difference between a dealer finding something valuable with a cheap price tag on it at a garage sale and a dealer seeing something valuable that someone owns and offering them what they know to be a ridiculously low price for it, hoping to take advantage of the other’s ignorance. In the former, its the seller’s fault and I don’t think they can complain. In the latter though I think they should have a claim.
|