[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

As far as the Mona Lisa at Target argument goes, it's known as
what are reasonable assumptions.

If you put a '1957 Topps baseball card' there is an implication
that is original unless otherwise said so. If it isn't, the
seller has to say so.

If you put a 'car' for sale in the automotive classifieds,
the implication is that it is a real car, not a miniature toy.
A judge will feel the buyer fairly assumed the card would be
real size and won't buy the seller's argument that "I never said
it was real size."

It is no one's assumption that the picture within a $5 frame at
Target is the real Mona Lisa. The judge won't believe your claim
that you thought you were buying the original painting. The judge
will assume that anyone of reasonable intelligence
knows a print in a Target frame isn't the original Mona Lisa.

The law isn't based on the assumption that "No one on earth has
any common sense"and "everyone is brain dead and can't figure out
a Mona Lisa coffee cup isn't the original painting." If you buy a
set of postcards of famous paintings, you won't win your case that
the postcards weren't the real paintings. On the other hand if
that 1957 Topps card turns out to be a reprint, you can win
in small claims court. Why? The judge will believe that it was
reasonable and fair for the buyer to assume he was getting a genuine
1957 Topps. Especially if the card was listed in the 1950s baseball
card section, the judge will see no reason why the buyer shouldn't
have interpreted it that he was getting a real card.

Also note that judge will look at pricing and use common sense. If you
are paying $5 for a Target frame, the judge will say it would be unreasonable,
and even idiotic, to think you are getting a $50 million dollar Van Gogh
with it. He simply won't buy a buyer's argument that he ever thought he was
getting the original painting. On the the other hand, if the buyer is
paying $1,500 for a T206, the judge will believe that the buyer thought
he was buying an original. The price the buyer was willing to pay is evidence
to what he thought he was being offered. Further, the judge may use the $1,500
price as indication that the seller knew, or at least had strong indication,
the buyer thought he was purchasing an original ... If the buyer's highest offer
had been 10 cents and the seller let it for for that price, then the judge would
say this sell price is clear indication both sides knew the card was a reprint.

Lastly, I'd like to see proof that the Target and Sears 'Van Gogh' and 'Renoir'
prints in frames do not have clear indications that they are modern reprints. The
Target Van Gogh argument may be premised on an assumption that is incorrect. The
Target Van Gogh may say on it, "Target Corperation, Mpls Mn, 2008."