Baseball card restoration

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would add to that summary that failure to disclose a material fact with intent to deceive can also be fraud, it doesn't necessarily require an affirmative misrepresentation.

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s a good point. Concealment of a material fact can also be fraud, but I believe it’s fraud only when there is a duty to disclose. Typically, real estate transactions have a duty to disclose material facts. I’m not sure whether there is a duty to disclose when selling personal property like sports cards.

If I sell you a car, and know it's defective but don't tell you, of course I had a duty to disclose that. I don't see why it's any different with any other good, if the concealed fact (here alteration) is material to the transaction.

[gregndodgers]

A car and a piece of cardboard are very different goods.

I took a look at the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) which provides standard rules for the sale of goods, and I believe most states have adopted the UCC.

Here’s what is says regarding the sale of goods (I.e., not real estate).

“Merchants” are held to a higher standard than “nonmerchants.” For example, UCC Section 2-103(1)(b) provides: ” ‘Good faith’ in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.” [FN4]

On the other hand, with respect to nonmerchants, Section 1-201(19) provides: “Good faith means honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.” Therefore, nonmerchants have an obligation of mere subjective good faith while merchants are also held to an objective standard. [FN5] A nonmerchant can meet its good faith duty if he or she has an honest but unreasonable belief that he or she acting in good faith.

So the first issue is whether the seller is a merchant, which is an individual who regularly deals in sports cards. The merchant has a higher duty when selling than a non-merchant does. Next, we must understand what “honesty in fact” means. Essentially, it means the seller cannot misrepresent a material fact. That definition implies that there is no duty to disclose a defect when a non merchant sells a good. Finally, every contract has a good faith requirement. The UCC says that the non-merchant must have a genuine belief they are acting in good faith.

Good faith means acting honestly, fairly, and in accordance with reasonable standards. Critically, this is not an objective standard for non-merchants: rather, it’s a subjective one. So as long as the seller (non-merchant) says they were acting honestly, that should be sufficient.

The bottom line: unless I’m told differently, I’m not sure that non-merchants have a duty to disclose material facts (I.e., facts that could change buyer’s decision to buy a card). Additionally, when the buyer has an opportunity to inspect an item before buying, there is typically a shifting of the burden here such that the buyer has less protection when it comes to defects.

Real estate and to a lesser degree, automobiles, are much more difficult to inspect than sports cards, so the burden is still on the seller to disclose.

As always, anyone buying or selling an expensive sports card should consult an attorney and / or their local laws for guidance.