some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[timn1]

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

Originally Posted by griffon512

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by timn1

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

tim, i'm basing that statement on ethical (not legal) grounds on the following:

1. i'm making the assumption based on what was written in this thread that chris did not know the cards were stolen. obviously chris had no control over what zach's brother did.

2. if he did not know the cards were stolen, he did nothing wrong in the act of purchasing and selling the cards.

3. the cost of anyone down the chain -- none of whom have culpability in the theft -- pursuing legal action against those who do not refund their purchase price is greater in money/time than what they stand to gain from a positive legal outcome (best case scenario of breaking even i presume). this disincentivizes them from pursuing legal action. this is a good example, in my opinion, of the legal system not providing an attractive alternative. as mike stated above, after talking to counsel he made the decision that it would have been potentially cost and time prohibitive for him to legally pursue reimbursement from chris. chris would have been in the same situation if he did reimburse mike, and so forth. ultimately the thief is likely not in a position to make monetary restitution, which would have been the ideal remedy of the legal system.

4. given the above, a third party providing partial or full restitution -- i would like to start if mike is open to it -- seems like a good alternative.

i don't want to get into a long debate on the ethics of this, who is to blame, etc. i stated my opinion and i recognize that reasonable people will disagree on a fair ethical outcome.

i'd rather start the action of making it better for mike, and in turn, me. i would feel better if mike would accept my $75. maybe others will follow. improving mike's life after a tough spell is worth more to me overall than the cost of $75. it starts to reciprocate something honorable that he did.

[Kenny Cole]

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

At the amount involved, it would probably be a small claims case. Neither side would even need to hire an attorney, although either could and might want to. They would go pitch it to the judge (you generally don't get a jury unless you specifically ask for one which, at least here, generally irritates the assigned judge greatly) and the judge decides. Assuming no attorney involvement, you are out whatever the court costs are, which you recoup if you win. That is the current solution to smaller cases dollar-wise which would otherwise not be financially feasible.

I haven't brushed up on personal jurisdiction recently, but is Chris subject to the jurisdiction of a PA small claims court just by virtue of shipping cards through a common carrier to Mike in PA? There certainly was a time when that would not be enough. If not, Mike has to go to KY.

[Kenny Cole]

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I didn't say where Peter. I just said it was probably a small claims matter. That is true wherever it is filed.

But, since you ask, if Mike Peich was called in Pennsylvania for the purpose of arranging the sale of the cards he ultimately purchased, which appears to have been the case at least once if not more if I read his post correctly, I suspect that could be found sufficient minimum contacts, in the form of specific jurisdiction, to allow an action in Pennsylvania. I'm not sure that true but I think it would likely be the case.

Could be Kenny, minimum contacts ain't what they used to be.