Posted By:
Kenny ColeI said this earlier in a post regarding a similar issue, and will reiterate it here -- if the buyer had a beef and I was representing him/her, I would allege constructive fraud. Assuming that the seller had a duty to disclose the true facts, which I think is a reasonable inference when you are talking about an auction description of a card as "unique" when it is not, at least in Oklahoma even an innocent misrepresentation (i.e., no intent to deceive) can be constructive fraud if the buyer is misled to his/her detriment. IMO, what that means is that saying something is "unique" when that statement is demonstrably false, even if that statement was made in the belief that it was true, may be grounds to avoid the contract IF the buyer can show that the untrue description of the item as "unique" was the basis for the decison to purchase it.
A finding of constructive fraud generally has the same legal effect as a finding of actual fraud. Theoretically, I suppose that means that damages could be awarded. However,I've never seen a constructive fraud case that resulted in anything other than avoidance or reformation of the contract. There may be one, but my take on the situation is that if constructive fraud could be proven, the buyer could probably make a pretty compelling argument for undoing the deal and getting his/her money back.
As a by the way, Mark, don't give up your day job as a tax lawyer just yet. 
The burden of proof in a fraud case is clear and convincing evidence, not a preponderance. However, practically speaking, I don't really think it matters all that much if you have to try the case -- if the jury is pissed off at what the defendant did, you probably get a verdict, regardless of the theoretical proof standard. If they aren't, you don't. It's just as simple as that.