|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
My blog about collecting cards in Japan: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspot.jp/ Last edited by seanofjapan; 01-11-2018 at 09:14 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Questions
Did A - report the theft to the Police?
Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?
__________________
Frank Evanov |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Great questions Frank.
__________________
Looking for: Type 1 photos of baseball HOFers N172 Old Judge Portraits Will buy or trade for the above. Check out my cards at: www.imageevent.com/crb972 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
These are good questions
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.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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.
Last edited by oldjudge; 01-12-2018 at 11:11 AM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I too have found out and am with Jay
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Fascinating reading. Sometimes I wish I dealt with more expensive cards and other times I read a thread like this and am glad most of my cards are inexpensive.
__________________
Looking for a T206 Jimmy Lavender Cycle back plus several American Beauty and Tolstoi backs for Providence players. Successful sales transactions with jamorton215, gorditadogg, myerburg311, TAFKADixie, jimq16415, Thromdog, CardPadre |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Sure would love to know who these people are, especially B..... If you know and wont say, I respect that, but please stop posting that you know and wont do biz anymore because its like telling a secret in the face of us who don't know!! Thanks'
Ryan |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Metal Lunch Meat Helmet | alanu | Football Cards Forum | 8 | 12-23-2010 02:32 PM |
You have to eat your meat before dessert!! | Leon | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 07-21-2010 09:03 PM |
Network 54 Dinner – Thank You for Having Meat | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 08-03-2008 11:46 AM |
1953 glendale meat cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 12-28-2005 10:59 AM |
1961 PETER MEAT FULL SET | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 12-01-2005 01:37 PM |