Posted By:
Peter Spaeth"(1) This is a unique situation and we all know grading services can change their mind; (2) This part of our web site did not exist when this card was auctioned; (3) Mr Haverkos bid by phone and not on the internet; (4) We are willing to accept a return but we want to know the actual age of the card first."
If an unqualified guaranty was made, then #1 is clearly irrelevant, and #4 is inconsistent with the terms of the guaranty. #3 also is irrelevant; surely the degree of protection the buyer gets doesn't depend on his method of bidding, and the guaranty nowhere says it is applicable only to internet bids. That said, if #2 is true, then no return guaranty was made with respect to the item. Is there a way objectively to determine whether the language at issue is indeed a recent addition to the website? At first blush it seems a little too convenient under the circumstances to carry a lot of credulity.