Quote:
Originally Posted by drc
The owner of the item is responsible for refund. If the owner wants to have an afterwords dispute with the TPA that's a second issue.
You are paying PSA to give opinion, not take over financial responsibilities for your sales, not as your insurance company. If people want PSA to start being 100% financially responsible for a $20,000 item, start assuming the authentication fee will be substantially higher. Perhaps $20,000.
This is not to suggest I believe PSA bears no financial responsibilities for shoddy, irresponsible work. A seller might indeed be able to after a refund take PSA to court and win some monies.
But, when in doubt, the legal owner of an item is responsible for the refund.
|
My thoughts exactly, which is why I asked for clarification as to what the poll question was suggesting. I would be very surprised if any TPA leaves themselves open to any financial responsibility above and beyond the actual authentication fees.
As drc said, that gets more into "authentication insurance" territory, and I would definitely expect to not only pay much more for the authentication of a high-end auto, but also have to jump through a much more rigorous set of hoops to prove a "bad authentication" claim.
That kind of "limitation of liability" to the cost of the services provided is pretty common in the professional world unless the one providing the services is required to be insured/bonded, in which case you will pay more for their services. There just ain't no such thing as free insurance
Amended to add: While I wouldn't be surprised to see "authentication insurance" as a TPA offering someday, I don't think the rate would be 100% of the item's fair market value.