Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

+2. When you buy a PSA1 or SCG10, pinholes, back damage, and scrap book remnants are expected. Not trying to sound harsh, but you're always allowed to ask for better scans. Sorry.

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by vargha

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

Sean, I will get something up tomorrow.

[nolemmings]

So legally, I have no real recourse

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

With all of the board lawyers here on my (pro bono) team, it just might be the thing to do!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

So if he doesn't have enough to ALLEGE fraud now, what's his colorable claim? Negligence?

[nolemmings]

Bare minimum: negligent misrepresentation tort claim, rescission contract claim (based at least on mutual mistake--after all, both sides claim no knowledge of pinholes and since AH takes time and effort to identify pinholes in other lots, it obviously considers the fact of such pinholes to be a material consideration in a buyer's decision).

There are likely several other theories available-- I'm not on the clock so I'll leave it at that for now, but it is not difficult to frame a cause of action here. You defense lawyers really need to get out in the light once in awhile.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Bare minimum: negligent misrepresentation tort claim, rescission contract claim (based at least on mutual mistake--after all, both sides claim no knowledge of pinholes and since AH takes time and effort to identify pinholes in other lots, it obviously considers the fact of such pinholes to be a material consideration in a buyer's decision).

There are likely several other theories available-- I'm not on the clock so I'll leave it at that for now, but it is not difficult to frame a cause of action here. You defense lawyers really need to get out in the light once in awhile.

What was the misrepresentation?