POLL: Who is responsible to reimburse collectors for bad autographs

[drc]

The owner of the item is responsible for refund. If the owner wants to have an afterwords dispute with the TPA that's a second issue.

You are paying PSA to give opinion, not take over financial responsibilities for your sales, not as your insurance company. If people want PSA to start being 100% financially responsible for a $20,000 item, start assuming the authentication fee will be substantially higher. Perhaps $20,000.

This is not to suggest I believe PSA bears no financial responsibilities for shoddy, irresponsible work. A seller might indeed be able to after a refund take PSA to court and win some monies.

But, when in doubt, the legal owner of an item is responsible for the refund.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drc

The owner of the item is responsible for refund. If the owner wants to have an afterwords dispute with the TPA that's a second issue.

You are paying PSA to give opinion, not take over financial responsibilities for your sales, not as your insurance company. If people want PSA to start being 100% financially responsible for a $20,000 item, start assuming the authentication fee will be substantially higher. Perhaps $20,000.

This is not to suggest I believe PSA bears no financial responsibilities for shoddy, irresponsible work. A seller might indeed be able to after a refund take PSA to court and win some monies.

But, when in doubt, the legal owner of an item is responsible for the refund.

My thoughts exactly, which is why I asked for clarification as to what the poll question was suggesting. I would be very surprised if any TPA leaves themselves open to any financial responsibility above and beyond the actual authentication fees.

As drc said, that gets more into "authentication insurance" territory, and I would definitely expect to not only pay much more for the authentication of a high-end auto, but also have to jump through a much more rigorous set of hoops to prove a "bad authentication" claim.

That kind of "limitation of liability" to the cost of the services provided is pretty common in the professional world unless the one providing the services is required to be insured/bonded, in which case you will pay more for their services. There just ain't no such thing as free insurance

Amended to add: While I wouldn't be surprised to see "authentication insurance" as a TPA offering someday, I don't think the rate would be 100% of the item's fair market value.

[mr2686]

Who's responsible for the refund? The government of course! Heck, they bail out everyone else

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Who's responsible for the refund? The government of course! Heck, they bail out everyone else

Well, in a way you're correct. Because if the dealer takes it back for a full refund, and is unable to get re-imbursed himself, it's possible that he would write off the money he had into it as a loss on his taxes..

[drc]

Another way to view it is, if the TPA makes the refund, that would mean the seller keeps the $10,000 for a Babe Ruth ball returned for it's a forgery. How often do any of us get to keep all the money when something is returned for being a fake or missgraded? Try never. Now that would be a screwy system.

[David Atkatz]

You might as well ask "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Both the auction houses and the TPAs have legally indemnified themselves. Read the small print in the auction catalogs and the TPAs contracts. According to them--and who has the money to test whether it can hold up in court?--neither of them will take financial responsibility.

[drc]

I believe 7. Angels that is.