[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal term, preponderance of the evidence is a civil term, at least in this and most other states. Misrepresentation, a civil creature, in our bailiwick, does not require intent to deceive thus there would be no need to prove the seller/auction house had intentionally tried to deceive the buyer in to believing the card was unique and one of a kind. I recognize the "puffery" argument but I think a strong case could be made for recission of the contract and/or damages based on the facts set forth above. The plaintiff need only show that the statement was false and that he relied upon the statement by a bare 50.1% showing of proof. The auction house would be held to a higher standard than that of Joe Blow who operates a mom and pop junk shop or Fred Cardboy who sells used clocks, appliances and a few refractor cards from the 90's. The statement that MHCC thoroughly investigated the situation and found that based on that investigation that it could state the card was unique, is damning. I am assuming MHCC probably is relying on the civil law of remedies in the state in which it is incorporated but it should thank its lucky stars it isn't located in this State because I think the buyer would have plenty of ammunition to pursue the redress of a civil wrong under our laws IMHO.
Caveat- I am a criminal defense attorney, not a civil litigator, but I did sleep in a Holiday Express last night