Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

[autograf]

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by autograf

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

Good point about Heritage. Large scans ARE possible.

[caramelcard]

Originally Posted by autograf

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

I agree. Everybody loves REA. They are the laziest with scans out of any auction house. Quality material with horrible small scans. I guess they only have a year (well now 6 months) to prepare scans...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Uh, no. There is also a duty not to mislead by speaking half truths, a duty not to fail to inform when you know what you have said may have been misleading, a duty to disclose based upon a relationship and superior knowledge, etc. Misrepresentation, deceit, omission, non-disclosure and concealment are all types of generic fraud. That's fraud 101

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Agreed.

[barrysloate]

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

[Leon]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

Infraction given again......NO mentioning of POLITICS......

[autograf]

'bitter.........party of one.........'




not you Leon....couple posts up......geez.....

[vargha]

I haven't really heard anyone who says Legendary has at least some culpability discuss what a fair response would be. Predicate it on them not having knowledge of the holes prior to my call. Or maybe answer it from the perspective of if you were the seller and a similar thing happened with the buyer contacting you.

[Leon]

I don't think Legendary purposely left out the mention of the holes or purposely made small scans to deceive. They should make their scans a bit larger, that is what they are guilty of. But they are 1s, if they look too good, you know there has to be an issue. I told David what I thought before he started this thread.....and if I were the auction house would have probably helped a little bit to offset the decreased value of the pinholes.....but not a lot.

I help run a smaller auction so it's not apples to apples, but I prefer to have very large scans, which take some time to do, instead of flowery descriptions.....

[nolemmings]

I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed.

Your assumption was reasonable. It would not have been difficult to identify the pinholes-- I searched their auction using the term "pinhole" and found 19 lots where that term was used. Granted, almost all were raw cards that perhaps merit a more thorough description, but 2-3 graded wrappers included the term in the description. I also noted a lot of 12 T205s where the scans of individual cards were larger and appeared clearer than these Oxfords.
I believe it a fair question to ask whether these scans were shown as they are on purpose and whether the omission of the pinholes in the description was deliberate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.