Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
From PSA's terms you have to agree to before you can submit a card:
"PSA will not grade items which bear evidence of trimming, recoloring, restoration, or any other form of alteration or tampering, or that are of questionable authenticity, and you agree not to knowingly submit any such items."
Anyone who uses PSA's grading services on a card they had restored must knowingly lie in order to get the card graded.
I think the restorer's responsibility in all this is somewhat gray. If the restorer knows that (A) the person who asked for the restored card is going to submit it to PSA and if they know that (B) the person has to agree not to send restored cards to PSA in order to get it graded, then I think they are complicit. If the restorer doesn't knows (A) or they know (A) but not (B), then I think they are not complicit.
|
That’s a fair analysis, but remember, the law and logic do not go hand in hand.
The laws in the particular state in which the sale occurs should govern the seller’s duties. Simply stating that a buyer was harmed in a transaction and the seller should have disclosed (to prevent that harm) is good logic, but it may not hold in court.