some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

I think M should keep the cards.

This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible).

I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss.

M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening.

A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so.

While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss.

You might want to read post 24.

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You might want to read post 24.

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

Disagree completely. One cannot keep stolen goods.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

[seanofjapan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

That is a different situation though. Personally I think whatever rule we (meaning collectors in general) establish to deal with situations involving stolen goods should encourage two types of behavior:

1) it should require dealers to exercise due diligence when purchasing cards. If they fail to do so (say by turning a blind eye to cards from a suspicious source, etc), they should eat the loss.
2) it should encourage collectors to take reasonable measures to safeguard their collections from theft. If they fail to do so they should eat the loss, unless they can show the dealer failed to exercise due diligence per 1 above, in which case the dealer should eat the loss regardless of the collector's negligence.

I think this is a better rule than merely saying "stolen goods should be returned always no matter what", which is a rule that encourages neither due diligence on the part of dealers (because if that is the rule they know they will have to give back cards regardless of whether or not they acted properly, so why would they bother going to the trouble) or appropriate care by collectors (for the same reason).

In the OP's scenario, all the facts which led to the loss in the first place are attributable to A rather than M. A had a drug addict thief for a brother? How is that M's fault? A put his cards where his brother had access? How is that M's fault?

Also since whoever eats the loss is going to have a claim against A's brother, it makes little sense to put M, who does not know or have any connection to the brother, in that position rather than A, who presumably (since its his brother) has a much closer connection to that person. If anyone is going to have a chance at getting money out of the real culprit it is A rather than M.

Conversely, nothing in the facts suggest that M did not exercise due diligence in making the purchase (unless I am missing something).

So I stand by my belief that M should not have been obligated to return the cards. It speaks well to his character and honesty as a dealer that he did so, but I don't think he should be been obligated to.

[mantlefan]

Did A - report the theft to the Police?

Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by mantlefan

Did A - report the theft to the Police?

Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?

Great questions Frank.

[timn1]

And I don’t know the answers. I’m not sure M knows either. In situations like that, you are pretty much at the mercy of what people are telling you. And those trying to do the right thing , like my friend, are often at a real disadvantage.

Originally Posted by the-illini

Great questions Frank.

[oldjudge]

I may be slow to the party but I have found out who B is. I will unequivocally never deal with his company again regardless of what happens from this point forward.

[58pinson]

Hypothetically:

In this scenario I see no one but "A" who has a problem.

That said cards are/were his is an allegation.
That a theft took place is unsubstantiated.
Even if both are true he exercised negligence in not insuring his property.
The commodity in question is generic and bearer indemnified.


I would draw a different set of conclusions were the items tracable via third party grading identicication or set registry, and a timely police report filed and verifiable. However, as any other player in this vignette I would do only what I was legally compelled to. Sorry

I'm aware that this is colored by the fact that these parties know each other, and while I think 'M" actions very commendable I feel he went way out of his way.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?

No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...

And if the dealer refuses, then what?

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And if the dealer refuses, then what?

Then we trade contact info and you file a police report.

I would think that the dealer once confronted with an officer questioning why said dealer is buying/selling stolen items (fencing?) at a show he might be more agreeable to refunding the purchase and giving the card back to you. He can then file is own report and insurance claim against the thief if he knows who it is..

Otherwise might be an embarrassing situation among a crowd of his peers at the show, endless gossip and a possible starring role on a new net54 thread.

If I had to give over the item, I would get a receipt from the officer and if a credit card purchase call the card company and cancel the sale. If cash I would not let it go and follow through the process as I am not going to take the hit as all I did was buy an item from a dealer who presented it as conveyable title...

[timn1]

The point is, as a supposedly honest hobby, shouldn’t we be able to exert ethical pressure so that the unlucky person who happened to have them when the theft was discovered shouldn’t be stuck with the entire loss?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You might want to read post 24.

Originally Posted by seanofjapan

So noted. M should have kept the cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

When ethical persuasion doesn't work, there's always legal action.

[timn1]

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

And what does M's lawyer say? M paid B for goods that turned out to be stolen and had no value because he was obligated to return them. Why doesn't M have a right to his money back?

[Peter_Spaeth]

More specifically, I believe M can sue B for breach of warranty of title, because B impliedly warranted he had title to the goods he was selling, whereas he did not. M should not be cowed because of what B claims his lawyer told him.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by timn1

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

[timn1]

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.

Originally Posted by BeanTown

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?