[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

So Kenny you are saying Leland's has what essentially amounts to strict liability if they say the card is from 1899 and it later turns out it isn't, even if they had no fraudulent intent, and could show that they believed based on a diligent investigation that at the time of the sale that the available evidence all pointed to 1899? Is there no defense available to Leland's at all if they make what is, in hindsight, shown to be a false statement?