[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

For the consignor to not know SGC opined the card was a fake, (i) he decided to resell one year later for reasons having nothing to do with the card's authenticity, (ii) consigned the card back to Clean Sweep, (iii) Clean Sweep or someone on its behalf sent the card to SGC, (iv) Clean Sweep, upon being told the card was no good, decided it did not want to disclose that info to the consignor and agreed to still sell it, despite by doing so it was blatantly violating not only its own expressed representations of selling only authentic material but also the express provisions of its guaranty (under which an opinion by a reputable grading service is enough for a card to be deemed no good). Hardly puts Clean Sweep in a very favorable light.

Even if the consignor knew SGC had rejected the card as a fake, he reasonably would be upset about having to refund (most of) the money inasmuch as he had recently purchased the card from a Clean Sweep auction. Because of that, I can't imagine how Clean Sweep could in anyway expect him to be responsible for the portion of the refund owed Mark up to the amount the consignor originally paid for the card the first time it was auctioned. I'm also having a hard time trying to imagine some reasonable scenario that Clean Sweep did not know of SGC's rejection of the card. Even if it was the consignor that sent the card to SGC, what Clean Sweep is saying is that a guy in good faith buys a card, sends it in for authentication, is told it is a fake, and DOESN'T then tell that to the auction house when demanding his money be returned?!

By any logical scenario, I'm struggling to imagine how Clean Sweep did not know of SGC's findings when it sold the card the second time.