TPG responsibility + AH Responsibility

[Lordstan]

For the record, I am not a lawyer.

As far as financial responsibility, to me, it seems that the TPA should only be liable for the auction price if the AH cannot get the money back from the consignor. Even then, it seems that the AH should be liable to refund the purchasing party. They could then possibly sue the TPA for restitution as they could attempt to prove that they accepted the item for sale only based on the opinion of the TPA. Had the TPA not approved it, they would have not sold it and therefore would not have a loss.

IMO, AH and TPAs should be liable for criminal charges only if you could prove they knew the item was fake and either certed the item and/or sold the item with the intent to defraud the buyer.

Again, this is a non lawyer's perspective and understanding. I wonder if someone with real legal knowledge could tell me if I am correct or not.

Another thought: Officially, TPAs only provide opinions, so legally it seems they would be liable for the value of that opinion. I guess what I don't know is if their advertising stating that their opinions helps to improve prices and values of item could somehow make them have additional financial responsibility because they claim it does. Not sure.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I guess what I don't know is if their advertising stating that their opinions helps to improve prices and values of item could somehow make them have additional financial responsibility because they claim it does. Not sure.

So if a $100 ungraded item becomes a $1000 graded item, the value of the opinion is $900 which they should be on the hook for? Interesting thought.

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by conor912

So if a $100 ungraded item becomes a $1000 graded item, the value of the opinion is $900 which they should be on the hook for? Interesting thought.

Yes. That is what i meant. As an additional point, one could look at their pricing policy being scaled based in the value of the autograoh and not the work/time needed to vette any aigular graph as further proof that they tie their opinion to the price of the auto. It seems to fit logically that they should then have more risk for higher priced autos/cards. If they are just providing an opinion, then each opinion should have the same value.
It makes me wonder how this has been handled in other collecting areas like the high end art market. Is Christie's held responsible for the authenticity if each piece or art it sells? Is the liability just for the sale price?

Interesting subject.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk