Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[steve B]

This one's a bit difficult.

First, I'm not familiar with these, does a pinhole vs a mass of creases make a huge difference in price? They're about equal to me, but if the issue is prone to that sort of hole which sounds like a poorly applied staple, then maybe unstapled but creased would be more desirable.

The scans weren't great. Not even close. Even zoomed in I couldn't see the damage, aside from the scrapbook damage.

But to me, a 10 is going to have some sort of major problem. So I might ask exactly what the problem is.

The other examples, both real and hypothetical don't work for me as they're not quite comparable. The torn program is pretty obviously a bad deal, the hypothetical card with a tear and seller only saying "no holes" when asked about holes is closer, but there the question was asked and only answering the specific question would be pretty sneaky.

When selling I typically went with good scans or pictures, and a brief description. If someone wanted more details I'd do my best to answer.

Also a poor example, but I had a similar issue with an ebay item. A block of four stamps, that turned out to not actually be a block. I waited a day before calling the seller, and realized that because of condition I'd actually make money if I sold them individually. But I called him anyway since the helper had certainly made a misleading scan and listing and I figured he should know. He didn't seem all that interested. (Big seller, with loads of lots and staff)

I think the real catch is here - Relevant line highlighted

Originally Posted by vargha

To your main points, did you even look at the scans? I provided a direct link to the lot on the very first post. Based on their appearances, did they look too good to be 1's? And lastly, are you now introducing intelligence as a factor for disclosure? If so, how un-smart would a person need to be to place some responsibility at the feet of the seller?

Yeah, if you were gambling that the cards were undergraded and might do better a second time around or graded with another company I can see some disappointment. And maybe some reluctance to ask since that might be added to the description if it looked correct.
Nothing against gambling on grades, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's on the buyer if they don't ask. (I've taken a chance on a few graded cards and more ungraded, won a few lost a few, that's the breaks.)

Steve B

[vargha]

Originally Posted by steve B

Yeah, if you were gambling that the cards were undergraded and might do better a second time around or graded with another company I can see some disappointment. And maybe some reluctance to ask since that might be added to the description if it looked correct.
Nothing against gambling on grades, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's on the buyer if they don't ask. (I've taken a chance on a few graded cards and more ungraded, won a few lost a few, that's the breaks.)

Steve B

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, my answer to your earlier question was a legal opinion, not an ethical opinion. I agree with you there is not always a one to one correspondence between what is right and what does or does not subject one to liability.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, my answer to your earlier question was a legal opinion, not an ethical opinion. I agree with you there is not always a one to one correspondence between what is right and what does or does not subject one to liability.

Stop it! You are messing with my narrative about lawyers.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vargha

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

This is exactly what I have a problem with and remember you asked for opinions. You admit the cards are graded fairly now but want to SCAM the auction house out of money.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vargha

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

Fair enough. I read the comment as you thought they were better than the grade.

If it had been me selling I'd have probably tried to work something out. Over the long run, that's the better way even if it meant a small loss for the AH on the one item.

Steve B

[nolemmings]

What was the misrepresentation?

Misrepresentation can be by omission--see, e.g. Section 551 of the Restatement 2d Torts. I'm defending a case now with trial set in February that is based in large part on this theory.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Misrepresentation can be by omission--see, e.g. Section 551 of the Restatement 2d Torts. I'm defending a case now with trial set in February that is based in large part on this theory.

Yes, but you need a duty to disclose where an omission is concerned, mere fact of materiality doesn't impose a duty. No fiduciary relationship here, no incomplete disclosure rendered misleading by the omission. Maybe something else?

[nolemmings]

In Arizona at least you would have such a duty in virtually any buyer/seller transaction, any transaction in which you have a pecuniary interest.

BTW, the contract claim, again here in AZ, would be pretty close to a dunk if the facts as described were proven true IMO. That would give David his rescission and, as prevailing party, his attorney's fees.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

In Arizona at least you would have such a duty in virtually any buyer/seller transaction, any transaction in which you have a pecuniary interest.

Damn liberal state.

Doesn't follow the Restatement section you quoted, apparently.
"Unless he is under some one of the duties of disclosure stated in Subsection (2), one party to a business transaction is not liable
to the other for harm caused by his failure to disclose to the other facts of which he knows the other is ignorant and which he
further knows the other, if he knew of them, would regard as material in determining his course of action in the transaction in
question."

[autograf]

I'm sure you're familiar with SGC's definition of SGC10............

This card usually exhibits many of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tears, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss, small portions of the card may be missing.

Seems like the grade is commensurate with the cards, so I guess had you had full disclosure that there were pinholes (or cuts as you later described them), you would have not bid at the level you did. To me, they look better than a SGC10 with the small scans. I would have asked what made them a SGC10 but they certainly could have/should have noted that the cards had cuts in them.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.............

[nolemmings]

Damn liberal state.

Yup, that sure describes Arizona. A deep blue State all right

[tschock]

Just read through this entire thread. One thing that bugs me.

A ) It seems there is quite a bit of sentiment along the lines that a buyer should buy an SGC 10 with the ASSUMPTION that "these cards were a 10, so you should have expected something that would detract from a higher grade, regardless of what you could actually see or not." Or something along those lines.
B ) Yet the prevailing mantra is "buy the card, not the holder" (implying the grade on the holder).
These 2 ideas are at odds with each other.

Buying an SGC 10 card with "something wrong" where you cannot tell what is wrong is simply buying the holder. The card itself doesn't matter since there is "something wrong", which could be anything that would put that card into a 10 category. If that's the case, then this is NOT a value judgement from the buyer of the card ITSELF. Or at least to what extent the buyer can see from any scans.

Also as we all know, all 10s, 20s, etc are not created equal. And we ALL have our preferences when we "buy the card, not the holder". If a card already has ONE defect that will lower it to a 10, then additional defects don't matter... to the HOLDER. But they might matter to the buyer who is buying the CARD.

This has nothing to do with who's at fault, bad scans, etc. Just to point that A and B above are conflicting positions.

One other thing I find disconcerting, assuming David's discussion with Legendary went down as mentioned, is that Legendary would not accept a return on a SLABBED item yet they offer satisfaction guaranteed?

[Sean1125]

After reading this thread I'm pretty sure I can open my own legal practice.=

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

After reading this thread I'm pretty sure I can open my own legal practice.=

You may wish to add Kevin Quinn as your class action expert.

[T206Collector]

I too think that when you buy an SGC 10, you can be sure there is a lot of stuff wrong with it that you may not be seeing -- particularly if you're seeing what appears to be a charming little piece of cardboard. In most cases, I personally would just wear the disappointment. Maybe send an annoyed email to the seller/auction house.

Having said that, Legendary should take the cards back under these facts and circumstances (weak scan, little description, disappointed customer, quick return request, etc.). Good customer service is (or should be) such a huge part of this hobby.

[glchen]

I haven't read through this entire thread, just the first couple of pages. However, personally, the cards were graded SGC 10/1, Poor. It is what it is, Poor, and I don't think that Legendary has any obligation to accept the return or provide recompensation. To me, this situation like someone buying a card off ebay, and then he tries to flip it, if he doesn't get the price he wants, he files a SNAD claim to return the card. I don't think that's right.

One thing about Legendary scans. I have noticed that Legendary and I'll bring up REA also, both of these notable auction houses have in general small scans for most of their listings, especially lotted listings. You cannot see most of the detail for the cards in their scans. In this day and age where some auction houses like Heritage and Huggins & Scott offer huge scans of the cards, both Legendary and REA are way behind the times. Both of these auction houses should offer much larger scans of all lots in their auctions than they currently do.