Who's the A-hole?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

There were a series of issues here, but the entire thing has its roots in some of the cards being overgraded. Were clear, hi-res scans or photos provided pre-sale, along with proper noting of any blemishes that the scans failed to pick up?

Regardless, the buyer thought he was getting something different than what he signed up for. Upon reinspection, the seller agreed with the buyer's condition assessments, so they have admitted that oversight. Since the original error rests on the shoulders of the seller, a better compromise than "all or nothing" should have been granted by the seller. Seller is the source of the initial problem and completely fails to bend a bit as the result of his oversights. Hence, seller is the bigger problem.

Also, the buyer is clearly only interested in cards of a certain condition and wouldn't have added them to the discounted deal if he had known about the issues.

Personally, if it wasn't a ton of money, I would have likely acquiesced to the buyer's wishes and moved on. Not worth the time or aggravation. If not:

The easiest solution? Simple. Meet in the middle. Crunch the numbers between the full and discounted prices and offer the remaining cards at whatever that happy median turns out to be. How hard is that? I can't see how anybody would take issue with that logic. If at that point the buyer says, "No, thanks", then it's time to just give a full refund and move your merchandise elsewhere. The seller would have done all they could as far as I'm concerned.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Seller should make it right, HE is the one who overgraded the cards in the first place. How is this on the buyer? Common sense wise that is, I'm not giving a contract law answer.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Seller should make it right, HE is the one who overgraded the cards in the first place. How is this on the buyer? Common sense wise that is, I'm not giving a contract law answer.

Seller offered a full refund and allowed a return. That IS making it right.

[bnorth]

I have found in the baseball card collecting community we need to know both peoples names. The one who isn't the A-Hole is the one that is your friend or has given you better deals over the years.

[raulus]

How about none of the above?

It should be okay to disagree on stuff, and for the disagreement to take some time to figure out. That process doesn’t require anyone to be guilty of a-hattery.

Now if someone had done something egregious, like ignore the other party and refuse to engage, or get refunded but refuse to return the cards, then sure, plenty of hattery activities there.

[Jewish-collector]

If the other person comes on here with his perspective, this thread will get much more interesting. Right, Al ?

[Michael B]

You clearly state:

The cards were priced individually. Buyer picked 20 cards that he wanted, negotiated a discount for the group, paid the money, got the cards.

That is the operative phrase to me. Once they were returned you start new negotiations on the 15 cards he found acceptable based on the original offer price.

Life is complicated, not every solution needs to be.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

If the other person comes on here with his perspective, this thread will get much more interesting. Right, Al ?

Yes, it would be fun to see if he comments. He hasn't yet.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Beercan collector]

Originally Posted by raulus

How about none of the above?

It should be okay to disagree on stuff, and for the disagreement to take some time to figure out. That process doesn’t require anyone to be guilty of a-hattery.

Now if someone had done something egregious, like ignore the other party and refuse to engage, or get refunded but refuse to return the cards, then sure, plenty of hattery activities there.

+1 , no assholes just people “doing business “ .. Perhaps doing business a little bit too hard but nothing to get wound up about , When there’s a “Lot” - there’s gonna be some differing opinions

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Beercan collector

+1 , no assholes just people “doing business “ .. Perhaps doing business a little bit too hard but nothing to get wound up about , When there’s a “Lot” - there’s gonna be some differing opinions

I guess I took the "big argument ensues" to be more than just a differing of opinions.

[Tyruscobb]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Seller offered a full refund and allowed a return. That IS making it right.

Tim, don’t try and argue with Peter. He is a contrarian and would argue with a stump.

[Gorditadogg]

Originally Posted by Tyruscobb

Tim, don’t try and argue with Peter. He is a contrarian and would argue with a stump.

Wow, Brent throwin' down. I wish I had the back story on that. Our candidates for A-hole could be growing.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Seller should make it right, HE is the one who overgraded the cards in the first place. How is this on the buyer? Common sense wise that is, I'm not giving a contract law answer.

Anyone who buys and sells raw cards knows grades are subjective though. We, unlike a lot of auctions sell raw cards and assign them grades. While we strive to be accurate, differences of opinions occur. In those rare instances we offer a full refund, but no renegotiation.

[LEHR]

Whichever end of this transaction someone is on I'm sure they probably think the other party is being the asshole.
For me personally, I'm not arguing over something as trivial as a baseball card. When the seller stated "It's all or nothing" I'd have asked him to send the refund for the entire lot and moved on.

[gregndodgers]

No A hole here. Seller has an obligation to advertise properly, and if the cards are not ALL near mint as advertised, then the seller may return them and rescind the agreement. The initial legal issue in this case is whether the cards are all near mint and what standard should be used to define near mint.

Once the cards were returned because they all did not comply with the terms of the contract (I.e. condition), then the original contract has been rescinded and neither party has any obligation to the other.

The buyer then attempted a new agreement, which the seller did not agree to. At that point, neither part has any obligation to the other, so if they cannot agree on new terms, they should simply walk away. Instead, both became emotional but there was no reason for that since neither had an obligation to the other.

The real problem is that neither party appears versed in basic contracts.

[Snowman]

Seller is the a-hole. If you won't budge on price even after being shown that your cards are over-graded, you're the a-hole.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Seller is the a-hole. If you won't budge on price even after being shown that your cards are over-graded, you're the a-hole.

Nevermind, found the a-hole.

A seller is not an a-hole because he doesn't lower his price for you. He is free to sell his cards for any price he wants, and free to walk away from any offer, even if you believe it to be reasonable. Your comment shows a sense of entitlement that needs to be gone from our society.