FS: 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson PSA 4.5

[Peter_Spaeth]

Thoughtful analysis. Not sure it flies in the real world though with a state court judge. Mr. Johnson, you could have sold and still could sell this card for a $20,000 profit after PSA affirmed the grade despite what an internet poster said about it, but instead you're here in my court suing PSA why exactly?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Thoughtful analysis. Not sure it flies in the real world though with a state court judge. Mr. Johnson, you could have sold and still could sell this card for a $20,000 profit after PSA affirmed the grade despite what an internet poster said about it, but instead you're here in my court suing PSA why exactly?

Fair. Maybe the most troubling part of the guaranty from the submitter's perspective is agreeing to jurisdiction in Orange County.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Fair. Maybe the most troubling part of the guaranty from the submitter's perspective is agreeing to jurisdiction in Orange County.

That, plus the apparent fact they don't necessarily give you a fair review.

[Republicaninmass]

I still cant see damages MORE than what he paid for the card. Because values went up doesn't jive, his was/is/could be trimmed. Unless you are talking treble damages under a 93A.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_damages

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_damages

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

I have no idea here but theoretically could PSA argue that their duty to mitigate damages was to do a review of said card at no expense to the owner ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

As I've posted, I thought AJ should have returned the card for a refund which he apparently had the opportunity to do. Not looking to reopen that debate.

More broadly, the duty to mitigate is a powerful concept. It's why a landlord has to make reasonable efforts to re-lease an apartment when the tenant breaches, for example, before being able to recover from the tenant.