some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[Jacklitsch]

For those of you in the know, good for you. For the rest of us it's caveat emptor.

[timn1]

my friend gives me permission to do it. If he doesn't, then I would point out that there are ways for smart people to find these things out - I can't tell you myself, but many other people do know...

[Exhibitman]

The insurer who pays out typically has a subrogation right--it steps into the shoes of the insured for purposes of pursuing the person who caused the damage. Most personal articles policies also have language expressly transferring rights to damaged or recovered items to the insurer if payment is made to the insured on the policy.

I have no compunctions about naming the dealer, except I can't recall his name. I know he sets up at the National and has a wife who is very visible as part of the business. She is usually at the table over-dressed for the occasion, which in the case of a card show means she is usually wearing female clothing without visible scars, tattoos or a fanny pack.

As for the case itself, I see it this way:

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Virtually no jurisdiction allows a thief to pass good title to a stolen object (there are a few bona fide purchaser laws in Texas for example that might allow it in certain circumstances, but this all went down in states that aren't run by moonbats). Doesn't matter how remote or how many times it is resold, title to the card is no good and the actual owner can recover it. Think of it this way: I steal the Mona Lisa and sell it to you and you can resell it a hundred times to a hundred different purchasers...doesn't mean the end buyer owns it because I never owned it; the lady goes back to Paris if the French authorities come a knocking. So, M never acquired good title to the cards because the dealer never had title to them because he purchased from a thief. The actual owner has the right to go into court and demand that M return his cards or pay the value of them. IMO, M did the right thing but he also did the thing that any decent attorney would have told him was the thing he would be compelled to do if push came to shove. M has a right against the dealer (what the heck is his name?) for what Peter already alluded to--breach of an implied warranty of good title to the merch. The dealer has the right to sue A's junkie brother for the cost he is out. A also can sue the brother and perhaps the grandparents for allowing the known junkie-criminal access to the cards in the first place.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Snapolit1]

wrong thread,.

[ALR-bishop]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him immoral or unethical. He was entirely innocent and has suffered a significant financial loss.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to?

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

[Peter_Spaeth]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

We had this discussion before in the context of the NYPL. Posts 16-18 I think. To be estopped, the silent person needs to have intended to disadvantage another.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=estoppel

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

Uhh, I think that one fell about 10 yards short of the goal post.

[the-illini]

A doesn’t have to file charges against a family member but he had no problem taking all of the cards back and essentially making M the victim of his brother’s theft.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Then why do many professions and professional organizations have codes of ethics? Check the definitions I feel ethics and morality, while related, are not synonymous.

They don't, at least not in the sense you are loosely using the terms. A voluntary organization can ask its members to adhere to certain standards but there is no requirement that a person join the organization or adhere to the standards it sets. If a professional organization has an enforceable set of rules required to maintain a license, it is because the state has delegated lawmaking in the form of regulatory capacity to that organization. They can label it a code of ethics (they don't use "morals") but it is really a regulation with the compulsory power of the state behind it. For example, the California State Bar. It has a set of rules of professional conduct and if you breach them you can be investigated, prosecuted in the State Bar Court, and possibly lose your license. That isn't ethics, it is regulation.

[drcy]

I don't know the people and the details of this story, but just realize that normal and legal practice is to give refund to a person who was the direct buyer. Period. With stolen items and a chain of ownership, refund/return is given down the line of owners. It is very problematic giving refund to someone who wasn't your buyer-- especially if you don't know them. At the very least, there had better be good proof that the items were stolen.

In other cases, I find it problematic when the people on hobby boards criticize a big auction house or dealer refuses to refund years later to someone who never bought the item from them. If the hobby expects this and does not expect the refundee to provide significant proof the items were stolen and of the chain of ownership, the auctioneer or dealer could theoretically be giving out refunds to multiple people on one item. I've heard a big auction house say "I've never sold anything to this person and have never met him. Why should I be handing him over money?"-- which is a reasonable (and legally correct) argument.

As mentioned, A's main beef and source of getting money back is with his brother. And, at the very least, if he expects money back from the third or whatever generation buyer, he'd better have insurance claim papers or police report to prove the items were stolen.

If the parties want to cut a deal and do things differently because they think that's the right thing to do, that is fine and acceptable, but legally M never owed refund directly to A. That's not to say A does not get a refund or the cards back, but this is not the way the law says it is to be done. Judges often say (to the effect) "You have a legitimate case, but you've sued the wrong person."

[Peter_Spaeth]

When the police or the feds recover stolen property from its current owner, innocent or not, they don't say to the current owner, please go return the item to the person you bought it from and get a refund. They take it.

[judsonhamlin]

And do (or should) list that downstream buyer as an additional victim

[judsonhamlin]

And if I learn who B is, he'll lose my business as well

[rhettyeakley]

I am not aware of the players in this scenario BUT as one half of a well known set of brothers (along with Rhys) on this forum/hobby I just don’t want anyone to think we are “A,” or even “B” for that matter.

[glynparson]

My brother many years ago went through a period of heavy drug abuse and did something similar. I did not go after anyone but him, I never had to get the police involved my dad and grandfather forced him to make it good. I made him pay me back replacement value,which he did after a period of time. He had an inheritance coming so it made things a little easier.