some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[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.

[chris]

I will try to keep this as short as possible. Most everyone seems to be on the same page; I agree, this is a mess and unfair to leave Mike holding the bag. I am willing to make Mike an offer I feel is fair. (I am sure some of the readers here will feel otherwise.)

I do not wish to argue every point Mike made in his post but I will a few:

9. "Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email."
Zach filed an incident report. He did not press charges or file a criminal theft charge against his brother.

10. "I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska."
I simply stated the two dealers that handled the cards before me, would not entertain a refund down the chain unless criminal charges were filed and Mike kept possession of the cards until a legal assessment of the transaction of events could be legally documented.

"I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward."
We discussed Zach filling criminal charges against his brother on the the phone multiple times. In addition, I worked with Zach at the National and afterwards in an attempt to locate other missing cards in KY and OH areas.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
"Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price."
Absolutely not true. I told him what the others dealers involved had discussed and Mike completely ignored all requests to speak with legal counsel.

Mike, you did have every opportunity over the past 450+ days to pick up the phone and call or email me back.

Here is my offer. I refund you 50% of your purchase price, $1850. As far as the remaining money, I feel Zach needs to press criminal charges against his brother. If that takes place, hopefully, WE can work together to seek restitution against Zach’s brother. Or Zach can pay you the portion to make you whole. I had absolutely NO idea the cards were stolen and I have no control over Zach’s decision to criminally charge his brother. I’m sure many of you will disagree with me, hate me, never do business with me, etc.. you are entitled to do as you choose. Mike, if this is agreeable please confirm your address and I will put a check in the mail Monday morning.

Mike, I am very sorry to hear of your son in laws health. I wish you and your family nothing but the best.

Finally, I really HATE to read some very disparaging posts calling me a scumbag. I have been very active in this hobby for almost 15 years as a collector and dealer. I have NEVER took advantage of anyone. I realize there are people on this board who are fortunate enough to say $3,700 or $15,000 is a small sum of money. Unfortunately for me and many others $3,700 is a lot of money and I am not lucky enough to live such a privileged life as you. Congratulations for being such an outstanding citizen and an overall winner at life. You are free to form your own opinion but I am no scumbag.