Seller sues dealer/buyer for a high flip

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

smh.

Just no moral compass...

lol. In the end I'd probably come out the same way though. Now if I found one on the sidewalk....

[packs]

Antiques Roadshow is all about happy accidents and things. People love the show for these stories, no?

[seanofjapan]

This sale is way different from a baseball card in one important respect, which is that at the time of the sale neither party necessarily knew what the object was (for certain) or its value.

The dealer obviously believed it was something valuable, but at the same time after buying it got two appraisals indicating it was worth about what he paid for it. This indicates there was uncertainty and risk involved - the thing might have turned out to not be worth much, but it also might be worth a lot. He was taking a chance on it and discounted the amount he was willing to pay to account for that risk. Given the windfall he achieved I think the right thing to do would ge to share some of that with the original owners, but I’m not sure that the courts should enforce that unless therewas some deliberate deceit involved.

This isn’t the case with baseball cards. If a dealer offers someone 150 bucks for a 1952 Topps Mantle, there is no risk like that and the dealer is purely ripping someone off.

I think there is also a huge difference between a dealer finding something valuable with a cheap price tag on it at a garage sale and a dealer seeing something valuable that someone owns and offering them what they know to be a ridiculously low price for it, hoping to take advantage of the other’s ignorance. In the former, its the seller’s fault and I don’t think they can complain. In the latter though I think they should have a claim.

[Fred]

How I see this...

If the buyer honestly didn't know the value of the mask or had a clue that it could be worth extremely more, then they did nothing wrong. However, if it were me, I'd gladly put some money back into the pockets of the original person that sold it to me. There'd be no obligation, but in my mind, it's karma.

If the buyer did know/understand that it could be worth much more, then ethically could have considered this in the transaction. If they didn't and just wanted to make a killing, then they're probably no different than a dealer of any other collectible who is an a-hole shyster.

Now apply this to the flea market - people go in search of such items at a flea market. What happens if the item is a fake, then the person that bought it thinking it was worth A LOT MORE (but probably didn't disclose that to the seller) got ripped off whilst thinking they were going to make a killing on it - that's just karma... what goes around comes around...

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

lol. In the end I'd probably come out the same way though. Now if I found one on the sidewalk....

Maybe I’d sell it for $5 million and stop by and give the book store guy $1 million to retire on. That would be cool.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Maybe I’d sell it for $5 million and stop by and give the book store guy $1 million to retire on. That would be cool.

That's a reasonable approach.

[Centauri]

I dabble a little in game used memorabilia, and have had a couple of finds where the day of the authentication was unimportant, but a previous game or 2 was a big one, and I was able to photo match to the previous game. If my leg work increases the value 4-5 times, am I cool to keep it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Centauri

I dabble a little in game used memorabilia, and have had a couple of finds where the day of the authentication was unimportant, but a previous game or 2 was a big one, and I was able to photo match to the previous game. If my leg work increases the value 4-5 times, am I cool to keep it?

Seems similar to getting a card graded which can make it much more valuable. I can't imagine an issue.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Maybe I’d sell it for $5 million and stop by and give the book store guy $1 million to retire on. That would be cool.

I love this idea...theoretically.

Somehow I feel it would quickly turn into a situation where a family member of the store owner or the owner themselves wrap me into a lingering lawsuit for the full amount and it sits in litigation for years.

It's sad, but often doing the right thing backfires in a spectacular way. Perhaps, one could use a legal intermediary to provide a gift with no additional information as to why. These situations often remind me of the commonality of lawsuits when a lottery group wins the prize. Sometimes the holder of the tickets wins on one that was bought individually or falsefully states it was, or in the other couple cases where someone did not put in their share the week it won and still wants the winnings?

I remember one in which that happened and the winners still gave them a substantial amount but they still sued. So hard to judge how a person will respond to this situation.

This specific instance that the thread was based on does seem ok to me IF indeed the gardener story is untrue. If that pans out then it would show an intent to defraud.

The part about offering 300k plus would be more than honorable for the dealer if this is a case of them just completing due diligence to get the best price. How many others would have enlisted carbon-14 dating to find the truth? Based on the initial estimates of the first two auction houses prior to the dealers additional work, the buyer had provided a far more than fair purchase price.

It's now the kids seeing green and wanting a piece of something they never wanted in the first place that now defers back to why the prior imaginary bookstore owner payment would blow up in someone's face.

[bmattioli]

Caveat Emptor..

Nuff said..