Posted By:
JoannThanks so much for the input and comments so far. I find some of these questions fascinating.
Barry - I think you bring up a really good wrap-up point. After all the legal discussion I can end by talking about how almost none of it is ever brought into play in the real world, and some of the reasons for it. I think people will find that very interesting - there will be so many issues covered, and to think that in a way it's all for naught is a real-life reality. Especially good point to make on students, I think.
I didn't realize that ebay specifically invokes UCC Section 2 provisions to remove themselves from responsibility in the transaction. I suppose it would be a real mess if buyers were somehow allowed to say that, on ebay, ownership passes when they pay the money. Fraud, especially on ebay, will be a big part of the topic, and pointing out this kind of contractual provision will be on point. Anyone remember when one ebay seller listed a lot of T206's with a BIN of $30K, and they didn't own the cards? The website that had them for sale came on this board to let everyone know that the auction was phoney. That will come up too - as I recall ebay didn't take that auction down either.
I will definitely bring up Peter S points about PSA and negligence theory. The audience (students) may not have had all of the classes related to some of the advanced topics, but I can count on the fact that they have had first term Torts.
I'll also mention the vintage players as lawyers, but I'm not sure they would recognize names. Probably as part of the cards show-n-tell.
And as one more interesting note. This professor told me (I haven't seen it yet) that the case involving the Barry Bonds home run ball is now in the Property casebook we use for our Prop I and Prop II classes.
Keep them coming. Thanks again.
Joann