Baseball card restoration

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I know a card is altered and that it would matter to the buyer, how can I be acting in good faith by not saying anything? I am acting with the intent to deceive which by definition is bad faith. And the issue is not what the seller SAYS was his state of mind, it's what the fact finder concludes WAS his actual state of mind. People lie all the time.

Sure, if the seller can convince the fact finder that he truly didn't know the card was altered, it would not be fraud. It could still be innocent misrepresentation or mutual mistake entitling the buyer to rescission though.

And you are nailing a key issue in sports cards. What obligations / duties do sellers have? Ethically, I think you are exactly correct. People should disclose material facts. But in the legal realm, I don’t believe non-merchants have that same duty. They only have a duty of telling the truth.

So when I buy, I always ask if the seller knows of any defects, trimming, alterations, etc. and if I later discover such, I can go back to the seller and ask for my money back. Same thing if you believe the card is a counterfeit or reprint. Always ask before buying.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

And you are nailing a key issue in sports cards. What obligations / duties do sellers have? Ethically, I think you are exactly correct. People should disclose material facts. But in the legal realm, I don’t believe non-merchants have that same duty. They only have a duty of telling the truth.

So when I buy, I always ask if the seller knows of any defects, trimming, alterations, etc. and if I later discover such, I can go back to the seller and ask for my money back. Same thing if you believe the card is a counterfeit or reprint. Always ask before buying.

Your legal statement is not, in my opinion, supported by the UCC provisions you quoted, for the reasons stated in my previous post. It is not subjective good faith to knowingly conceal a material fact. But I would agree as a practical matter it's best to ask.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Your legal statement is not, in my opinion, supported by the UCC provisions you quoted, for the reasons stated in my previous post. It is not subjective good faith to knowingly conceal a material fact. But I would agree as a practical matter it's best to ask.

That’s ok. As a lawyer, I’m used to people disagreeing with my legal conclusions. That’s why we have a judge and / or a jury to decide who is correct.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s ok. As a lawyer, I’m used to people disagreeing with my legal conclusions. That’s why we have a judge and / or a jury to decide who is correct.

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

Exactly. We don't have to take the seller's word for it, as Greg for some reason seems to think given what he says in post 18.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

Sure, but I don't even know what you disagree with. You started out questioning if the fraud 101 principle that concealment of a material fact can be fraud applied at all to baseball cards. Post 15. I really don't even know now what you're trying to show. Anyhow, fine to leave it there.

[gregndodgers]

I think the key issue what is “good faith” mean in the sports card industry / hobby?

If a card has been trimmed or recolored (e.g., touched up), I think most agree that the standard is disclosure.

If wax or dirt has been rubbed off a card, I think the standard is that non-disclosure is okay. But that’s only my opinion.

Card soaking? Not sure if there is a standard. Now if more and more cards are graded and found to have been “soaked,” then the standard would be more clear.

What if a card has been “restored.” Take the Hans Wagner card in this thread as an example. I think most would agree that disclosure is required. However, should that affect the value? I think it does reduce value to a certain degree. Sports card enthusiasts value originality and condition, so the value will be negatively affected to some degree.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I think the key issue what is “good faith” mean in the sports card industry / hobby?

If a card has been trimmed or recolored (e.g., touched up), I think most agree that the standard is disclosure.

If wax or dirt has been rubbed off a card, I think the standard is that non-disclosure is okay. But that’s only my opinion.

Card soaking? Not sure if there is a standard. Now if more and more cards are graded and found to have been “soaked,” then the standard would be more clear.

What if a card has been “restored.” Take the Hans Wagner card in this thread as an example. I think most would agree that disclosure is required. However, should that affect the value? I think it does reduce value to a certain degree. Sports card enthusiasts value originality and condition, so the value will be negatively affected to some degree.

You've moved on to a very different question, which is what alterations are considered material such that a seller needs to disclose them, and yes, on some there is clear consensus, on others less so. And the less there is a consensus, the harder a fraud claim gets because the seller's claim of good faith is more plausible.

[gregndodgers]

Sometimes, examples are needed to help explain the law.

I bought a 10,000 card collection a few years back that included cards from different sports cards from the 60s thru the 80s. Most of the cards were in fair to good condition except that the 80s were all near mint. One card was the 84 fleer Don Mattingly RC, which although not rare or pricy, is one of my favorite 80s cards. I was ecstatic to see that the card’s corners were razor sharp and the centering was perfect. However, upon close inspection, I saw a very small indentation that looked like the card had been stabbed by a ball point pen. Fortunately, the indentation was not very deep.

Well, I instantly thought that if I applied a tiny bit of water to the hole and then some pressure, I could push out the indentation. Sure enough, it worked. Using a 10x loop, I looked at the area where the hole had been. There was no evidence a hole had been there.

So was this act a “alteration?” I think the answer is yes. However, if I sold that card, should I have to disclose what I did? That’s a harder question. Under the UCC, I must be honest in fact, so my statements to a potential buyer must be true. Next, I must use good faith. That means beside honesty, I must be fair and reasonable, and have a genuine belief that I am acting in good faith.

In the case of the Mattingly card, I do not feel that I must disclose what I did to the card. First, the UCC has no duty to disclose in this case. Second, as long as I believe that I am acting fairly and reasonably under the circumstances, there is no harm.

In my opinion, I am acting fairly and reasonably even if I don’t disclose the previous indentation. There is no evidence that the indentation was ever there. It was extremely small to begin with. Also, if a very small dent (on an expensive car) is pulled / pushed out, I’m not sure the seller would feel a need to disclose that. Finally, what would be the industry standard for a situation like this? I’m not sure, but I would bet many hobbyists do this at some point, and as long as the card’s value is not impacted, I’m not sure anyone would care.

So this is an example where my subjective belief would be examined, and I don’t think anyone could find that I acted in bad faith here. However, I understand that these issues are not black and white, so I’m sure some would disagree with me.

The key is that I can make a decent subjective argument for why I believe I have acted in good faith, and since subjective intent typically is a low bar, I believe I have met it here.

Every situation / legal issue is fact intensive, and that’s why lawyers must hear all the facts before drawing any conclusions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Of course you can posit a set of facts which would show good faith by the seller. However, you stated as a general proposition in post 18 that as long as a seller SAYS he is acting honestly, he would NEVER have a duty to disclose. Goalposts moving.

Your own words:

"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)."

Bottom line for me, if you trim a card and sell it to me without disclosing it, it makes no difference if you are a merchant or non-merchant, it's fraud.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course you can posit a set of facts which would show good faith by the seller. However, you stated as a general proposition in post 18 that as long as a seller SAYS he is acting honestly, he would NEVER have a duty to disclose. Goalposts moving.

Your own words:

"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)."

Bottom line for me, if you trim a card and sell it to me without disclosing it, it makes no difference if you are a merchant or non-merchant, it's fraud.

Uhh…when did I ever use the word “NEVER?”

Any lawyer worth his / her weight does not deal in absolutes. My words were “should” not “never.”

But my main goal in responding to this thread was to help clarify some of the issues. That’s all. It’s not to argue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You're now confusing your own words. You stated as a general proposition that you did not believe a non-merchant had a duty to disclose material facts, so long as he said he acted in good faith.