Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
Suppose we're at a show. I walk up to your table and present to you incontrovertible proof that the card you just bought from some other dealer was stolen from my table. You believe me. I ask for it back. Are you really going to tell me, no, it's mine now?
|
That is a different situation though. Personally I think whatever rule we (meaning collectors in general) establish to deal with situations involving stolen goods should encourage two types of behavior:
1) it should require dealers to exercise due diligence when purchasing cards. If they fail to do so (say by turning a blind eye to cards from a suspicious source, etc), they should eat the loss.
2) it should encourage collectors to take reasonable measures to safeguard their collections from theft. If they fail to do so they should eat the loss, unless they can show the dealer failed to exercise due diligence per 1 above, in which case the dealer should eat the loss regardless of the collector's negligence.
I think this is a better rule than merely saying "stolen goods should be returned always no matter what", which is a rule that encourages neither due diligence on the part of dealers (because if that is the rule they know they will have to give back cards regardless of whether or not they acted properly, so why would they bother going to the trouble) or appropriate care by collectors (for the same reason).
In the OP's scenario, all the facts which led to the loss in the first place are attributable to A rather than M. A had a drug addict thief for a brother? How is that M's fault? A put his cards where his brother had access? How is that M's fault?
Also since whoever eats the loss is going to have a claim against A's brother, it makes little sense to put M, who does not know or have any connection to the brother, in that position rather than A, who presumably (since its his brother) has a much closer connection to that person. If anyone is going to have a chance at getting money out of the real culprit it is A rather than M.
Conversely, nothing in the facts suggest that M did not exercise due diligence in making the purchase (unless I am missing something).
So I stand by my belief that M should not have been obligated to return the cards. It speaks well to his character and honesty as a dealer that he did so, but I don't think he should be been obligated to.