T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Certainly what you are saying has a certain logic and persuasive force. However, there are certain alleged misrepresentations on which a buyer in a transaction may not reasonably rely or which just can't form the basis for a fraud/misrepresentation claim in the first place. For example, statements of opinion are (with certain exceptions) generally not considered actionable.

Here, assuming for the sake of argument Brian actually represented the card was unique (and I think he stopped short of that) how can any sophisticated purchaser really rely on that to conclude the card was in fact unique? As Dan Bretta alluded to, it is not a statement that can be proven true, only one that can be proven false. Brian Drent cannot possibly have examined every collection in the country to determine that, as a factual matter, there was no other T5 Jackson. Noone considering spending huge bucks on the card could possibly have believed Brian Drent was in a position to know for sure there was no other T5 Jackson. So all you have, at the end of the day, is a presumably truthful representation by Brian that he believed based on his research there wasn't another one out there. That to me doesn't mean a hell of a lot, no disrespect to Brian. I can certainly see the logic of what you are saying, and I don't think by any means this is an open or shut case and a plaintiff represented by a good advocate such as Kenny Cole could make out a sympathetic case. But in my view, no buyer could reasonably rely on a representation about the uniqueness of a card.

Now having said that, I also believe Brian didn't really represent that it was unique, he only represented that based on his diligence he BELIEVED the card was unique, and that statment presumably was truthful. Leaving aside the reliance issue, if he overstated the extent of his diligence, or if his diligence was so obviously below a standard of care, then the statement could form the basis of a negligent misrepresentation action -- but again I see a reasonable reliance problem.