|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew or suspected they were stolen.
Last edited by egbeachley; 01-11-2018 at 07:41 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
It doesn't matter, because they weren't B's to sell irrespective of what B knew or did not know. M paid for nothing. Although I don't love the outcome, because I feel for B as an innocent, B should refund M and go after his seller.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 01-11-2018 at 07:44 PM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I'm going to be a contrarian and say that I think M should keep the cards.
This is basically a question of who should suck up the loss , A or M? (I'm assuming that getting the real person who should bear the loss, the brother, to pay up is impossible). I think the over-riding principle should be that the person who was in the best situation to have prevented the debacle in the first place is the one who should bear the loss. M was a purchaser in good faith who had no way of knowing (or reason to suspect) that the cards had been stolen. He is completely blameless and there was nothing he could reasonably have done to prevent this from happening. A on the other hand was basically careless with his cards. I'm assuming a bit from the facts you have given that he left them with minimal to no supervision at his parent's house, while knowing that his drug addicted brother had access to them and might steal them. He was in a position to have prevented this from happening at all if he had just put them in a safe spot away from his brother, and was negligent in failing to do so. While I can sympathize with A, I really see no reason why M should be forced to bear the cost of his loss. My opinion would be a lot different if M knew they were stolen or had reason to suspect they were stolen and turned a blind eye to that (ie bought them from an unreliable source, etc), in which case I would say he should absolutely return them.
__________________
My blog about collecting cards in Japan: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspot.jp/ Last edited by seanofjapan; 01-11-2018 at 08:15 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
So noted. M should have kept the cards.
__________________
My blog about collecting cards in Japan: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspot.jp/ |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Disagree completely. One cannot keep stolen goods.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
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?
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
My blog about collecting cards in Japan: https://baseballcardsinjapan.blogspot.jp/ Last edited by seanofjapan; 01-11-2018 at 09:14 PM. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
No, won't do that but we will walk over to the dealer's table I purchased it from, get a refund of my money and return the card to him and then the two of you can sort it out...
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Can’t keep them
The point is, as a supposedly honest hobby, shouldn’t we be able to exert ethical pressure so that the unlucky person who happened to have them when the theft was discovered shouldn’t be stuck with the entire loss?
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
When ethical persuasion doesn't work, there's always legal action.
__________________
My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ He is available to do custom drawings in graphite, charcoal and other media. He also sells some of his works as note cards/greeting cards on Etsy under JamesSpaethArt. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
A is in the photo
B is not in the photo M took the photo The OP is also in the photo I was at B's table browsing and over heard a sleezy conversation about this entire situation at the Atlantic City National. M knows this as I spoke to him minutes later on this. Call me W (whitness) and I'm in the photo to!
__________________
Love Ty Cobb rare items and baseball currency from the 19th Century. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Metal Lunch Meat Helmet | alanu | Football Cards Forum | 8 | 12-23-2010 02:32 PM |
You have to eat your meat before dessert!! | Leon | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 45 | 07-21-2010 09:03 PM |
Network 54 Dinner – Thank You for Having Meat | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 08-03-2008 11:46 AM |
1953 glendale meat cards | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 12-28-2005 10:59 AM |
1961 PETER MEAT FULL SET | Archive | 1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 0 | 12-01-2005 01:37 PM |