PSA Card Guarantee

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's meaningless in my opinion because THEY control the determination of whether the card sent back to them is altered or not. As we saw in the case of AJ's obviously altered Leaf Jackie where they stood behind the grade. They don't need fine print to cap their liability, just their own bad faith.

I do agree with Corey that the cards that have been specifically outed are the small tip of a big iceberg.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's meaningless in my opinion because THEY control the determination of whether the card sent back to them is altered or not. As we saw in the case of AJ's obviously altered Leaf Jackie where they stood behind the grade. They don't need fine print to cap their liability, just their own bad faith.

I do agree with Corey that the cards that have been specifically outed are the small tip of a big iceberg.

I agree that THEY control whether a card is altered. But assuming an obligation of good faith is required of them when making this determination and given that in many instances I believe it can be conclusively shown the card has been altered, I don't think this is a meaningless provision.

Granted as a practical matter no one is going to bring an action unless the claim is astronomical enough to justify the legal expense, but I can foresee where someday somebody might have the economic incentive, and in such an instance this provision could be helpful to PSA. The fact they added it suggests to me that they know the reviews they give cards submitted under the Guarantee are done in bad faith.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I agree that THEY control whether a card is altered. But assuming an obligation of good faith is required of them when making this determination and given that in many instances I believe it can be conclusively shown the card has been altered, I don't think this is a meaningless provision.

Granted as a practical matter no one is going to bring an action unless the claim is astronomical enough to justify the legal expense, but I can foresee where someday somebody might have the economic incentive, and in such an instance this provision could be helpful to PSA. The fact they added it suggests to me that they know the reviews they give cards submitted under the Guarantee are done in bad faith.

It would be very hard to prove assuming it ever got that far. PSA puts on Reza, the person with the most experience grading cards in the world probably, who testifies it looks good to him and that's why he recommended not buying it back. The collector puts on someone else who can't examine the card outside the slab. I mean if the card was an inch short sure, but most altered cards aren't THAT obvious.

[benjulmag]

I think between what could be forensically proven, coupled with the egregious nature of some of the alterations, their so-called expert, regardless how experienced, would be shown to be either a liar or an idiot. Whatever the case, if I was a guy who stood to lose the value of most of his collection and the loss was at the level that warranted a lawsuit, I would file it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I think between what could be forensically proven, coupled with the egregious nature of some the alterations, their so-called expert, regardless how experienced, would be shown to be either a liar or an idiot. Whatever the case, if I was a guy who stood to lose the value of most of his collection and the loss was at the level that warranted a lawsuit, I would file it.

How do you forensically prove anything with the card in a holder? And don't you void the guarantee if you remove it? Maybe there could be some stipulated procedure but I don't know.

And I am not sure you could show a loss. The Wagner is almost universally conceded to be first sheet cut (rendering it AUTH even before Mastro) and then trimmed. It's ROI is astronomical. Who has lost any money in the scandal? You don't like your altered card, just sell it for a profit. Duty to mitigate, remember.

[benjulmag]

Presumably the instance in which someone would have the economic incentive to bring an action is when he cannot sell it for a profit. Granted that day may never come because the current market does not seem to care that cards that are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars are in reality worth a fraction of that, but it still blows my mind that people do that. As was noted by one of the posters in the blowout thread, that person is very distraught that his mint card is altered, and likely will view graded cards differently going forward.

And too I would think that even if it required at some point taking the card out of the holder to do the forensic examination, which I'm not sure is required in all instances, once that was done and the card was shown to be a fake, any trier of fact would look at PSA's expert in a different light. I don't think juries like it when people get screwed and believe it was done in bad faith. And too, I'm not sure how well it will be received by a court that the only way I could mitigate my damages is by withholding material information from the person I would be selling it to.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Presumably the instance in which someone would have the economic incentive to bring an action is when he cannot sell it for a profit. Granted that day may never come because the current market does not seem to care that cards that are selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars are in reality worth a fraction of that, but it still blows my mind that people do that. As was noted by one of the posters in the blowout thread, that person is very distraught that his mint card is altered, and likely will view graded cards differently going forward.

And too I would think that even if it required at some point taking the card out of the thread to do the forensic examination, which I'm not sure is required in all instances, once that was done and the card was shown to be a fake, any trier of fact would look at PSA's expert in a different light. I don't think juries like it when people get screwed and believe it was done in bad faith. And too, I'm not sure how well it will be received by a court that the only way I could mitigate my damages is by withholding material information from the person I would be selling it to.

IMO you could probably disclose it in most cases and do just fine. You and I are from the generation where it mattered, but I don't think it does any more to a huge swath of the hoibby.

[doug.goodman]

The opinion sellers DO NOT CARE about any of these conversations, or about Blowout or about YOU or about YOUR CARDS.

Nothing has changed from the beginning of their existence.

They lied then, and they lie now, surprised!

The only thing that the average individual can do is to can be done is to stop using them, and obviously that isn't going to happen.

For those of you who use them, enjoy collecting your plastic slabs and the fantasies that many of them contain. Nothing wrong with enjoying your fantasies.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How do you forensically prove anything with the card in a holder? And don't you void the guarantee if you remove it? Maybe there could be some stipulated procedure but I don't know.

And I am not sure you could show a loss. The Wagner is almost universally conceded to be first sheet cut (rendering it AUTH even before Mastro) and then trimmed. It's ROI is astronomical. Who has lost any money in the scandal? You don't like your altered card, just sell it for a profit. Duty to mitigate, remember.

I look at that the same way I looked at my employer telling me to simply palm the fake 10 I'd taken off on someone else. (I covered the 10 and kept it. )

Can a duty to mitigate be a defense for fraud? I'm thinking no, but stuff can be weird....

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

I look at that the same way I looked at my employer telling me to simply palm the fake 10 I'd taken off on someone else. (I covered the 10 and kept it. )

Can a duty to mitigate be a defense for fraud? I'm thinking no, but stuff can be weird....

No, it's applicable to a contract claim. But a claim based on the guarantee would not be a fraud claim. Although now that I think about it, the way it's worded, I don't think there would be a duty to mitigate.