some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[sb1]

Knowing most of the events/players of this scenario, it would be most desirable if all of the cards somehow got back to A. However some are too far dispersed at this time and it also requires someone or more than one take a hit, as the person who stole them and sold them to the dealer has no skin in the game.

M has little chance of getting reimbursed from B and B has no chance of getting reimbursed by the culprit, (sure would be easier if we could use names, the initials confuse me) and A has little chance of ever getting back to where he was in this scenario before the theft.

I think if M does the best he can to reassemble the original group and makes a good faith effort to make A whole, at the very least he makes himself feel better about the entire mess and gives A a large portion of the collection back in it's proper place. At that point it would be nice if B would step up and reimburse M at least some money to help out. No one is going to be completely unscathed by this entire deal, except for the perp who could probably care less.

All that being said, this is probably not the best venue to try this case, as most outsiders will not have the complete story(at least as we know it).

[the-illini]

Hypothetically speaking it would be nice if the dealer acted in good faith to make A as whole as possible rather than, hypothetically, lawyering up to check their responsibility under the letter of the law.

Chris Bland

[oldjudge]

I think that M has done the right thing-return the cards to A that he has in his possession and recouped and return those that he sold. That should make victim A whole or nearly whole. M should then go to B and explain the situation. If B is reputable he will refund M's purchase price and then, if there are others between himself and scum bag brother try to get his purchase price from them. Assuming scum bag brother has already used the money and cannot repay, someone south of B, or B, will lose money. Hopefully, the police are involved and part of scum bag brother's sentence is to make restitution for the amounts lost. I think it would be a big mistake if scum bag brother is not prosecuted, he needs to be saved from himself.

[oldjudge]

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.

B is a member of the board. I will leave it to A or M if they wish to reveal who it is.

Chris Bland

[egbeachley]

M didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be the one who loses any money.

A should take the financial hit now and work on getting reimbursed by brother, unless all transactions can be reversed. Presumably it's the original buyer who made the most profit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It seems to me B and M are both equally innocent BFPs. So why should B absorb all the hit (assuming B has no recourse against the thief), is it just because someone has to and he is earlier in the chain?

[Rookiemonster]

“Hypothetically “what if I had a crack head brother and told him to sell my cards and I’ll report them stolen. Then I’ll go after my cards and get most of them back and drop the charges on my brother?

[oldjudge]

Eric-I strongly disagree with you. If someone broke into your house and stole your collection would you feel that you should bear the total loss because you had not "secured" it? A believed he left the collection in a secure place.

[oldjudge]

Peter-If justice is served B will only be out the time value of money (and his profit margin on resale). As a dealer, he should bear some responsibility if he buys stolen goods.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Eric-I strongly disagree with you. If someone broke into your house and stole your collection would you feel that you should bear the total loss because you had not "secured" it? A believed he left the collection in a secure place.

Absolutely. Who else should, assuming the buyers didn't suspect they were stolen?

Maybe one of us misread the scenario. But it looks like M paid full retail for the cards, the 3rd sale down the line (first sale by brother locally, then to Dealer B, then to M). That burden shouldn't be on M. Yes, maybe B will step up and then the first buyer will also. But that should be worked out first. Then yes, M should help with the process and loses any profits, same as B and first buyer.

Not to mention that maybe A will eventually be made whole by the brother (maybe parents adjust inheritance or court garnishments).

[Tennis13]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

By the way, I would like the know who B is. If he or she will not return M's purchase price I would like to avoid future dealings.

So that was my thinking, except that M should let his name be known because if the story is true, he's a real honest guy. Maybe we all chip in $5 each to make him whole on his $2,500 to $5,000 for being a good guy.

[timn1]

Obviously I am willing and eager to name those involved, but won’t do so until I can talk to my friend. He is dealing with a serious family issue at the moment so it may not be right away.

Originally Posted by Tennis13

So that was my thinking, except that M should let his name be known because if the story is true, he's a real honest guy. Maybe we all chip in $5 each to make him whole on his $2,500 to $5,000 for being a good guy.

[Jacklitsch]

I like M a lot but A should bear most of the responsibility here. After all it was he who failed to safeguard his collection and likely it was his brother who stole the cards.

I understand that a thief cannot convey good title and likely the end result would have been the same. There may be some exception if the buyer acquires goods from a bona fide seller (B).

Anyway M is good guy as we all know.