I got screwed over on the BST today!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chipperhank44

I agree with this statement, but disagree with how you are applying it to this situation.

Once fully paid for, the OP was the owner of the card. The seller may have still had possession of the card, but ownership had changed hands.

So yes, a card is yours until its not, but I think in this case.....it was not the seller's card anymore.

So if an instant after the deal was done Dan's house had burned down and the card with it, Eric would have been out of luck because he was now the owner? No, because Dan still had title according to the law, until he completed his obligations with respect to shipping.

Section 2-401(2) of the UCC provides that “title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.”

But all that, to me, is beside the point.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if an instant after the deal was done Dan's house had burned down and the card with it, Eric would have been out of luck because he was now the owner? No, because Dan still had title according to the law, until he completed his obligations with respect to shipping.

Section 2-401(2) of the UCC provides that “title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.”

But all that, to me, is beside the point.

Always the truculent one

[GoldenAge50s]

As a long-time Seller on both EBay & right here on Net54, I can't imagine reneging on a deal once the $ had changed hands, EXCEPT if BOTH parties were in agreement to cancel.

GoBucs should think a bit an do the right thing---COMPLETE the deal w/ Cosmo!

Your reputation is at stake, if that means ANYTHING to you.

(Written BEFORE Post 67 was showing ( so apparently he doesn't)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by GoldenAge50s

As a long-time Seller on both EBay & right here on Net54, I can't imagine reneging on a deal once the $ had changed hands, EXCEPT if BOTH parties were in agreement to cancel.

GoBucs should think a bit an do the right thing---COMPLETE the deal w/ Cosmo!

Your reputation is at stake, if that means ANYTHING to you.

See his post above. It doesn't. Not being without a Mantle rookie means more.

[chipperhank44]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if an instant after the deal was done Dan's house had burned down and the card with it, Eric would have been out of luck because he was now the owner? No, because Dan still had title according to the law, until he completed his obligations with respect to shipping.

Section 2-401(2) of the UCC provides that “title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods.”

But all that, to me, is beside the point.

I said "I disagree", not the law disagrees. I'm glad to know the UCC (and therefore most states) agrees with the OP, but as many have already said, the legality is hardly the issue here. And based on your last statement (But all that, to me, is beside the point) I think you and I agree morally.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chipperhank44

I said "I disagree", not the law disagrees. I'm glad to know the UCC (and therefore most states) agrees with the OP, but as many have already said, the legality is hardly the issue here. And based on your last statement (But all that, to me, is beside the point) I think you and I agree morally.

Yes we are definitely on the same page as an ethical/moral issue, Dan should have completed the deal for sure.

[slidekellyslide]

I don't even understand the seller's reluctance to honor the deal...he's not too attached to the card since he's shopping around for a replacement. I guess the damage this has done to his reputation is worth holding onto a card that he's shopping around. Weird.

[TAVG]

....and this is why i don't buy high end cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I don't even understand the seller's reluctance to honor the deal...he's not too attached to the card since he's shopping around for a replacement. I guess the damage this has done to his reputation is worth holding onto a card that he's shopping around. Weird.

I understand not wanting to sell a card until I have replaced it, I just did that in fact, that makes sense to me, but that does not justify reneging on a completed deal.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand not wanting to sell a card until I have replaced it, I just did that in fact, that makes sense to me, but that does not justify reneging on a completed deal.

No it does not. I could understand maybe if it was a rare card, but it's not. This guy just wrecked his trading rep on Net54 on a card that he's looking to replace.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

No it does not. I could understand maybe if it was a rare card, but it's not. This guy just wrecked his trading rep on Net54 on a card that he's looking to replace.

Yes, but the thinking is that you would rather have the one you are looking to replace than none at all. I just did that with an Aaron rookie -- I bought a new one before selling my old one. It is irrational to some extent (what collector isn't) but I didn't want to not have an Aaron rookie.

But all I am saying is I understand the mindset, not condoning the behavior. Dan was dead wrong here.