some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[oldjudge]

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

Right, when Eric said "made off," it sounded like an accusation.

[Runscott]

Some of the opinions people have are very enlightening - my eyebrows were raised in surprise during most of the reading! Fortunately Peter brought sanity to the discussion.

It was also interesting to read Dan's story, since this is something that can happen to any of us as collectors. I had a couple of unique items stolen two years ago and played scenarios in my head as to what would happen if I found them on ebay or in an antique store. I finally decided that since they were only worth about $300, I would forget about it and never look at anything on ebay that looked similar to either item - basically, I never want to see them again. They were probably stolen by crackheads who threw them out on the side of the road, as they would look like worthless photographs to such people. But thinking this through made me wonder how safe it is to buy high-dollar items - virtually anything could have been stolen at some point.

[slidekellyslide]

Small update on my situation. I heard from the Lincoln police today who told me they still can not locate the woman who sold the figures to me. I asked about what I should do with the items. They told me to continue holding them. They believe that because the guy was compensated with insurance that the figures could belong to the insurance company now but that insurance companies rarely ever try to lay claim to collectibles like toys. They are also checking to see if I fall under the same laws regarding pawn shops. If the original owner wants his items back he can pay me what I paid the lady for them, but since he was compensated he will then have to pay the insurance company what he valued them at. I suspect that since I haven’t heard a word from him that his Insurance company told him this already.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Eric-You may have meant it differently, but, at least to me, it came off sounding bad. If Brother A had a few beers while watching a ball game at home and Brother B was driving the kids to camp, were Brother A and B drinking and driving?

You are correct, it did sound like I was accusing A as being an accomplice. That's why I wanted to clarify that's not what I meant.

But, I also understand firsthand the dynamics of family when it comes to these situations. That's why M returning the cards immediately created a situation whereby the brother doesn't suffer any consequences.

[autograf]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

You are correct, it did sound like I was accusing A as being an accomplice. That's why I wanted to clarify that's not what I meant.

But, I also understand firsthand the dynamics of family when it comes to these situations. That's why M returning the cards immediately created a situation whereby the brother doesn't suffer any consequences.

+1. Understand why M did what he did but not prosecuting the brother will never help the situation.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't believe in 'moral' when it comes to commerce: there is legal and illegal.

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

[timn1]

Hi Chris,

That is all somewhat clarifying, but when you say you never definitively said you would not work with Mike on a resolution, you’re finessing the fact that all this happened almost eighteen months ago. How long was he supposed to wait before concluding you were comfortable leaving him with the loss?

Also, I just want to clarify to everyone here that Mike DID NOT ask me to post this information. He has been avoiding going public in the hopes that a resolution could be reached. But as I mentioned, it has been almost eighteen months and I had to conclude that neither B nor A was going to do anything for Mike.

Tim

Originally Posted by chris

Alright guys, I am B. A lot has been said in this thread and I would like you to hear the entire story, as well as, voice my opinion.

First, I regret the way this entire deal has transpired. Over the past year, actions that I thought were going to happen never have (meaning A actually pressing charges against his brother)

I will keep other parties names incognito, they can chime in if they prefer.

Sometime during the Spring of 2016 a collector, we will call him T, walks into a card shop in West Virginia (I believe it was WV). He meets another so called collector while in the shop. We will call him the thief. The thief tells T that he and his father collected for many years, his father recently passed and now he is interested in selling their collection. I was told the owner of the card shop only dealt in modern cards and allowed the two to discuss a sale/purchase. Long story short, T purchases cards from the thief.

T holds on to the cards for some time then decides to sell some/all to a shop in Cincinnati . The shop owner, we will call him S, is a very knowledgeable dealer who has been around for many years. I have been dealing with him for over 10 years. S purchases some cards from T. S doesn't have a lot of local cliental to sell obscure tobacco cards so he calls me to see if I have interest. I tell S that I know a collector/dealer who may be interested.
At this point I call M and ask if he is interested, he is, and we make a deal. I mail M the cards and he mails me a check.

At this point 3 different collector/dealers have handled these cards. All of us have done some research and valuation of the cards. I can say for a FACT, I did not get these cards at a steal by any means. I purchased these only to help out a collector and then sold the cards to M for a 10% markup.

Fast forward a few months to the 2016 National in Atlantic City. A comes running up to me saying his collection was stolen and M has some of his cards for sale at his table. A asks me where I got the cards, I tell him I bought them from S. I proceed to call S to find out who he bought them from. He tells me he bought them from T. I happen to know T a little so I ask S for his phone number and call him. T then proceeds to tell me he bought them from the thief, the brother of A. At this point everyone involved; myself, M, S and T had no idea we were handling stolen cards.

Myself and T discuss what has happened. I contact S again and discuss with him as well. We all agree to have M hold the cards for safe keeping until we can discuss with authorities on how best to proceed. Although M & I know A, the other parties do not know if this is a hoax or if the cards were really stolen. They want A to press charges against his brother and then they will disburse the monies to appropriate parties. I tell M what has been discussed by the others involved. M makes the decision to immediately turns the cards over to A.

I spent the next day or two at the National discussing the theft with A and try to help him the best I can. I provided him all the parties contact info, gave him names of other shops in the area, as well as, a few local collectors who may have purchased cards from the thief. A tells myself and M that he will be pressing charges against the thief. While he did end up filing a incident report, to the best of my knowledge, a lawsuit or charges were NEVER filed against his brother, the thief.

I was never advocating to hold the cards hostage. I never wanted to keep stolen property - I simply wanted A to actually prove that these cards were stolen by pressing charges against his brother.

M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.

After reading this thread it seems many different opinions, both legal and personal, are being tossed around.

Here are some FACTS that you have not been privy to:

I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%. If M wants me to post my most recent correspondence with him I gladly will.

I never lawyered up, I simply asked advice from a friend of mine who happens to be a lawyer. I was not trying to cut off communication with M, he never replied to my last email.

I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.

I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.


This has been a terrible situation for all parties involved. I reached out to A and never received a response. To me A has disappeared, the thief has gotten off with everything and now M and I are caught in the middle.

I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.

I am not sure what Jay Cee is suggesting, I certainly was not having a sleezy conversation with my wife about this. I was upset and unsure how to handle this, considering it was within a few hours of discovering this has happened. To state that publically is complete BS.


M call or email me to discuss or if needed, feel free to make this as public as Tim has.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by timn1

Hi Chris,

That is all somewhat clarifying, but when you say you never definitively said you would not work with Mike on a resolution, you’re finessing the fact that all this happened almost eighteen months ago. How long was he supposed to wait before concluding you were comfortable leaving him with the loss?

Also, I just want to clarify to everyone here that Mike DID NOT ask me to post this information. He has been avoiding going public in the hopes that a resolution could be reached. But as I mentioned, it has been almost eighteen months and I had to conclude that neither B nor A was going to do anything for Mike.

Tim

After reading through most of this thread it seems to me your friend should have waited before returning the cards until the issue had been discussed with all parties involved. Perhaps if the brother who stole the cards was informed a police report would need to be filed for insurance purposes, he may have found a way to get the money back where it belonged. Assuming he's not still addicted to crack.

With no proof or police report I don't think I'd be willing to issue a refund in a case like this for cards that are no longer in my possession.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Ah but there is ethical and unethical.

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Snapolit1]

wrong thread,.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him immoral or unethical. He was entirely innocent and has suffered a significant financial loss.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to?

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

[ALR-bishop]

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

[the-illini]

So A has his cards, the original thief has his money, B has his money and M has the knowledge he did the ethically correct thing.

You can’t spend it or collect it but M has my respect.

Chris Bland

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Although not a native, I have lived in Texas for 27 of my 67 years. In my working days I was involved in some fairly large transactions involving California, and currently have a daughter living there in Tustin. Weird is apparently a matter of perspective

But Leon's post is pretty weird

Weird? Well, I guess quoting law that could apply to this case is sort of weird to some. Maybe it's only weird to non-Native Texans, which I am not.

And I agree with Chris's post right above this one too. M did the right thing.

[Gradedcardman]

It is a family issue. I would feel bad for the original owner but that's a family issue now.

[the-illini]

A doesn’t have to file charges against a family member but he had no problem taking all of the cards back and essentially making M the victim of his brother’s theft.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, there isn't in the commercial context. I am sure I will get some flack for this but anyway:

I disagree philosophically with your premise. We have a large, diverse populace and extensive laws to govern commercial transactions. They represent a hard-fought social consensus among very different people over what is acceptable commercial behavior. Without a settled framework of laws that controls these commercial situations we are left with no basic agreement on right and wrong and cannot transact. Anything beyond the law is a value judgment that does not reflect a social consensus.

It also raises my hackles to read labels like moral or ethical applied to commercial situations. Labels matter. By claiming that your position is "moral" or "ethical" you necessarily make any contrary view to yours immoral or unethical. If you label my position as immoral or unethical at the outset, no further rational discussion between us is possible and there can be no compromise or negotiations because your world view cannot tolerate a different position--the outcome would be unethical or immoral by definition.

Taking the current situation, I am of the belief that M had every right to consult an attorney and find out what his rights were. I believe he would have found that a thief cannot convey good title and that he was legally obligated to return the cards. Had it been the case that he obtained good title to the cards by reason of being a good faith bona fide purchaser, or a resident of a weird jurisdiction like Texas, I believe he could have retained the cards. If he elected to return them to A despite the law, that is his choice. I am not willing to make that decision for him and label him immoral or unethical if he decides not to do something he is not legally required to do. Now, given that A and M know each other and are in a network of friends and contacts in the hobby and there are a variety of extra-legal social pressures involved, M made a decision to return the cards immediately regardless of anything else because he knew A was telling the truth and that he would have paid a terrible social price for not doing so. I completely understand that position and appreciate it from that standpoint and applaud M for his decision to act immediately and decisively--it makes him a good friend--but I would have been open to listening to him had he reached a different decision based on controlling laws. I would not label him moral or immoral, ethical or unethical for doing what was legally required of him. He was entirely innocent in this mess and has suffered a significant financial loss. He has he right to question whether he should bear all of that loss; I would not hold that against him and label him unethical or immoral if he hesitated to hand over the cards.

I also take great issue with the view expressed by some (not you; I just don't want to write a separate post) that A has to file criminal charges against his brother to prove he is legit. Those of you who take that stance may not appreciate the terrible dynamics that a junkie can impose on a family. I am not just speaking abstractly. My sister was a junkie; she had the good grace to OD years ago. She stole some of my cards once and sold them to card stores around my town. I wanted to get my cards back and wanted to press charges but my mother begged me not to, so I did not report her to the police. Does that mean I am not entitled to retrieve my cards from the dealers she sold them to? FWIW, I decided in that situation to pay a dealer what he paid for my cards to get some of them back. I did not have to do so--a thief cannot convey good title in CA--but I chose to do so to resolve the matter without further pain to my parents. I also chose to label the dealer a crooked pig for recognizing that he was unlawfully selling stolen goods and jacking me up for cash to get them back, and I badmouthed him and his establishment until the day he died.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[timn1]

Yes, why not, Chris? Why not at least return half of Mike's loss to him? Can you provide a clear and simple explanation to your customer base how you justify not doing this?

And to Zach Rice: why not offer Mike some of the T209s he had wanted for his own collection when he bought the cards? Isn't that the least you could do, considering [B]how much expense and effort he went to in getting your cards back for you?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I understand Chris' perspective, but at the same time, I think M would have a valid claim against him, one which I suspect he will not pursue. If I were mediating this dispute, I would propose that Chris return half the proceeds to M, and that everyone move on in friendship. And while I don't know A's circumstances, there must be some more secure way to keep his cards.

[drcy]

M would have the legal claim against B for refund (I'm not saying criminal, just for a refund), EXCEPT there appears to have been no formal evidence (police report, insurance claim) of the original theft.

I agree with the poster who said, when you no longer have the cards, there had better be significant proof of the original theft before giving refund to A. And M would need this to get his refund from B. If there is now proof the items were originally stolen, then he has legal claim for the refund.

I understand sentiments about ethics, but one reason to follow what the law prescribes is when you don't things can get messed up as here. One reason for laws is to have a clear step-by-step path for how a situation like this can be neatly cleared up. The law here says where the stolen items go, who gets refund and has claims against who. A problem is two people here skipped what I (and the law) think are important steps. Further, I think the law in this situation leads to an ethical resolution-- and it was the skipping of steps that led to the current inequity.

[Peter_Spaeth]

double post

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

We had this discussion before in the context of the NYPL. Posts 16-18 I think. To be estopped, the silent person needs to have intended to disadvantage another.

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...light=estoppel

[Michael Peich]

My name is Mike Peich, and I am M in Tim Newcomb’s post. There are a few basic facts that I want to establish before I respond to Chris Buckler’s request that I “make this as public as Tim has.”

Facts:
1. A is Zach Rice. His cards were stored at his grandfather’s house in Ohio and they were stolen by his brother Max. Max sold many of the cards, including a group of 122 T210s, 73 T209s and a Texas Tommy, directly to the dealer Mr. Buckler identifies as T. T apparently contacted Mike Siska, S, and sold the cards to him. Mr. Buckler purchased the T210s and T209s from Mr. Siska, and agreed to accept the Texas Tommy on consignment from him.

2. On about May 12, 2016 Mr. Buckler contacted me and offered to sell me 73 T209s. I asked him how he acquired the cards and he replied that a “picker” friend of his, presumably Mr. Siska, found them somewhere in Kentucky and offered them to him. He also mentioned that Mr. Siska might have some T210s for sale and I told him I was interested in those as well. Mr. Buckler assured me that Mr. Siska was an honest fellow. He sent rough scans of the cards and we agreed upon a price of $1700 for the 209s. On May 14, 2016 I sent him a check (#5512) for the cards. My intent was to keep a few of them for my set, offer some to other T209 collectors, and sell the rest at the National where I had a booth with Tim Newcomb and Chris & Bill Bland.

3. On about May 24, 2016 Mr. Buckler called and said that Mr. Siska would sell the T210s and offered me the 122 cards and sent scans. On May 26, 2016 I sent him a check for $2000 (#5217).

4. Shortly after I received the T209s I sold 17 of them to three collectors I knew.

5. On the first day of the 2016 National Zach came to our booth where Tim was the only one present. He began looking at the 209s and 210s and asked Tim where I got the cards. Tim told him from Mr. Buckler, and at that point Zach stated that they were his cards. Tim called me and on my way back to the table I met Zach and we returned to our booth where he began to show me scans of the cards that were stored on his phone. It was clear to me that they were Zach’s cards, and I immediately pulled them from my case. Zach and I agreed that he would contact his grandparents, and we would both talk with Mr. Buckler.

6. In the ensuing few days Zach discovered from his grandparents that his entire collection was missing. What I had was one portion of that collection.

7. I decided that the correct thing to do was return the cards I had for sale to Zach, return the cards I had put into my collection, and retrieve the 17 209s I had sold. An attorney friend I contacted told me that even though I had paid for the cards, they were stolen goods and belonged to Zach.

8. With Zach present I made a list of the cards I returned to him, a list of the cards in my collection, and a list of the cards I had sold.

9. Zach indicated that he was going to file a stolen property report with the local authorities in the Ohio county where his grandparents lived. He notified me on September 19, 2016 that he had filed the report and attached a copy of it in his email.

10. I had several conversations at the National with Mr. Buckler about the cards. In every one of them I said that I was going to do the correct thing and return Zach’s cards to him. I also told him that I felt he should return the $3700 I had paid him for the cards. He demurred and said that his legal counsel had suggested that he was not responsible and could do nothing until Zach filed a formal theft report. When I pointed out that he could ask Mr. Siska to return his money, Mr. Buckler felt that might cause a rupture in his business relationship with Mr. Siska.

11. When I returned home I immediately contacted the three people to whom I sold the 209s, explained what had happened, offered to reimburse them for the cards, and asked that they return the cards so I could give them to Zach. They all understood. I returned their money, the cards were returned to me, and I mailed the cards to Zach along with the cards I had placed in my collection.

12. On Sept. 20, 2016 I sent Mr. Buckler an email informing him that Zach had filed the theft report. And then I stated the following (excerpted from my email):
Now that the theft report has been filed, and I have fulfilled my obligation and returned stolen property to Zach, I respectfully request that you please return the $3700 I paid for the two lots of Zach’s cards I purchased from you:
Lot #1: 73 cards from T209-II (Contentnea), $1700.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/14/16 (check #5212).
Lot #2: 122 cards from T210 (Old Mill), $2000.00 paid to Chris
Buckler on 5/26/16 (check #5217).

Thank you for your timely attention in returning my purchase amount
of $3700.

13. On September 21, 2016 I received an email response from Mr. Buckler and I have excerpted the following:
I have spoken with an attorney and was advised that I have no
lawful obligation to issue a total refund as the transaction was not made
in bad faith. However, I will reimburse you the profit I made on selling
you the cards of $400.

I know you are not happy with this situation and I am very sorry this
has happened. The only person responsible is Max Rice, he should be
the one who is punished and pay restitution to all parties in possession
of Zach’s property.

14. Mr. Buckler is correct. After I received his email I have had no further contact with him. He stated he would pay me a fraction of what I paid him and I assumed it would be a waste of my time to try, yet again, to convince him to return the full $3700. (I said nothing to him about the additional funds I had to pay to recover the cards I had sold.)

15. I spoke with legal counsel and after determining the expenses I would incur in recovering the $3700 from Mr. Buckler, I decided it was not worth the money and time to do so.

16. I am not a lawyer. I collect cards because I enjoy the baseball history represented by them. I am also not a full-time dealer. I set up once a year at the National. But on the two occasions years ago when I bought cards from dealers and I requested a return on my purchase, those two dealers honored their guarantee and returned my purchase price, with no questions asked. Based on that limited experience, and not armed with the nuances of legal theory, I made the decision at the National that the only action I could undertake was to return Zach’s property. I felt I was acting properly, not necessarily legally.

I want to respond to a few of Mr. Buckler’s FACTS.
1. I did offer M the profit that I made off the deal which was 10%
He did offer me $400.

2. See #13. above regarding “lawyering up.”

3. I attempted to work with all parties to facilitate a reasonable outcome.
A few times at the National, but not afterward.

4. I never firmly stated to M that I would not work with him in some way.
Mr. Buckler’s response to my September 20 email requesting the return of $3700 was to my mind a clear indication that he would not “work with me.”

5. I sure wish M would have just communicated with me personally without bringing Tim into this. I understand that Tim wants to help his friend, but he has caused confusion, as all the facts have not been stated.
I do not feel the burden of responsibility is mine to communicate with Mr. Buckler. It is his. Further, I did not ask Tim to create this post.

6. M is a well known, honest guy. While I can't blame him for turning the cards over, I do wish we could have discussed with the proper authorities before moving forward.
Mr. Buckler never made the suggestion that we talk “with the proper authorities” before moving forward. I told him repeatedly what I was going to do with the stolen property, and I asked that he do the same and refund my purchase price.

Apart from my wife and children, Tim Newcomb is my dearest friend in the world. He has on several occasions wanted to communicate to Net54 the incidents that transpired regarding the theft and my financial loss. By making this post he has acted out of friendship and indignation at what happened to me, but it wasn’t done at my request.

I have not responded to the thread prior to this because I have been in the Midwest with family (I live in Pennsylvania). For several months we have been dealing with a deadly medical issue regarding my son-in-law. I have not had time to do much else than provide support for my daughter and her husband, so once I make this post I will have little time to respond to other posts. My apologies. I do appreciate some of the kind comments made by posters to the thread.

Thank you for taking the time to read my account.

Mike Peich

[Peter_Spaeth]

I hope Chris will realize it's just not fair to leave Mike holding the entire bag here. The issue isn't whether he (Chris) did anything wrong, he didn't. It's just a very unfortunate situation.

[oldjudge]

Peter-No question, the right thing is for Buckler to return Mike's money. Isn't he also legally obligated to return Mike's money?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Peter-No question, the right thing is for Buckler to return Mike's money. Isn't he also legally obligated to return Mike's money?

I think if Mike were to sue Chris, Mike would win. It's a bit metaphysical whether that means Chris has a legal obligation at this point.

[oldjudge]

If Mike were to sue Buckler and win, would Buckler be responsible for Mike's attorney fees?

[calvindog]

Again, I didn't read this whole thread because I was too busy living but this is all over $3700???

I spoke to Zach after this occurred and I can't imagine not just giving the guy his money or cards back. We've all had the occasional bad luck with a deal and sometimes you have to just suck it up and give back the money -- regardless of what some lawyer tells you to do. Some of us give the money back, and some of us here will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to do the right thing if it means costing them a few bucks. I can't imagine this annoyance was worth $3700 to anyone. $3700, 15K or whatever the number is not worth it for people to think you're a hobby scumbag.

Mike and Zach have always been good guys in my book and their actions here confirm this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

If Mike were to sue Buckler and win, would Buckler be responsible for Mike's attorney fees?

No.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Again, I didn't read this whole thread because I was too busy living but this is all over $3700???

I spoke to Zach after this occurred and I can't imagine not just giving the guy his money or cards back. We've all had the occasional bad luck with a deal and sometimes you have to just suck it up and give back the money -- regardless of what some lawyer tells you to do. Some of us give the money back, and some of us here will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid having to do the right thing if it means costing them a few bucks. I can't imagine this annoyance was worth $3700 to anyone. $3700, 15K or whatever the number is not worth it for people to think you're a hobby scumbag.

Mike and Zach have always been good guys in my book and their actions here confirm this.

Well said Jeff

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No.

Depends on the state whose substantive law controls. In AZ, breach of warranty arises out of contract, and successful parties to contested actions arising out of contract can recover attorney's fees.

[oldjudge]

I assume Mike could sue in PA. Does anyone know PA law?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Depends on the state whose substantive law controls. In AZ, breach of warranty arises out of contract, and successful parties to contested actions arising out of contract can recover attorney's fees.

Well damn. That's an exception to the typical "American rule" still, no?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I assume Mike could sue in PA. Does anyone know PA law?

Why would you assume that? Isn't Chris in KY? And the sale took place in NJ right?

I am told the sale was not in NJ, my mistake, the purchase was made before the show where Zach saw his missing cards.

[rhettyeakley]

C’mon guys let’s get this thing sorted out!

Mike Peich is one of the greatest men I have met in this hobby and his passion is second to none, just one of the most pleasant guys I have had the pleasure of dealing with! Obviously, at this point he is out everything and it shouldn’t be that way!

Zach is also one of my favorite people and the passion that he has had given his age is actually pretty inspiring and gives me great hope for the future! I can’t imagine the feeling of betrayal and surprise that Zach was faced with seeing his own prized collection in someone else’s display case. To me that would be heartbreaking, then to find out it was your own brother that did this is such a violation!

Chris Buckler and his wife I count as friends and I always look forward to my interactions with them every National, he is one of my favorite dealers to deal with and he has helped me out on several deals, often times selling me something I think he may have gotten more money for had he so desired but he was willing to sell to me because he is genuinely a nice guy.

I can honestly see the situation from all 3 perspectives and feel for each of the 3 parties involved!

All that being said... let’s get a solution to this problem. Unfortunately someone or a combination of somebodies will be taking a financial hit. But let’s figure it out, if there is any way that I can help in any way I would be more than happy to do so as this whole situation stinks and IMO there is no clear cut “bad guy” amongst those listed above.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well damn. That's an exception to the typical "American rule" still, no?

Yes, but AZ is by no means alone.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why would you assume that? Isn't Chris in KY? And the sale took place in NJ right?

Of course, choice of forum would not necessarily equate to choice of law, either

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence). Under this related doctrine, when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one's silence in the face of the transgression may result in a loss of a right to make a claim for loss or damage, on the principle of consent inferred from accepting or permitting the wrongful acts without protest or claim.

Estoppel by silence or acquiescence: Estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when he had the right and opportunity to do so earlier, and such silence put another person at a disadvantage.

Uhh, I think that one fell about 10 yards short of the goal post.

[oldjudge]

How is choice of law decided in a case where seller in KY and buyer in PA and there is no written sales contract?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

How is choice of law decided in a case where seller in KY and buyer in PA and there is no written sales contract?

Possibly where the contract was formed -- NJ

Edit my mistake see above NJ was not the place of contracting.

[nolemmings]

That can be very complicated, Jay. Assuming the forum state follows the Restatement of Conflicts of Laws ( I do not know how many or which ones do), then here's a good place to start looking:

s 188. LAW GOVERNING IN ABSENCE OF EFFECTIVE CHOICE BY THE PARTIES

TEXT

(1) The rights and duties of the parties with respect to an issue in contract are determined by the local law of the state which, with respect to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties under the principles stated in s 6.

(2) In the absence of an effective choice of law by the parties (see s 187), the contacts to be taken into account in applying the principles of s 6 to determine the law applicable to an issue include:

(a) the place of contracting,

(b) the place of negotiation of the contract,

(c) the place of performance,

(d) the location of the subject matter of the contract, and

(e) the domicil, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of the parties.

These contacts are to be evaluated according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.

(3) If the place of negotiating the contract and the place of performance are in the same state, the local law of this state will usually be applied, except as otherwise provided in ss 189-199 and 203.

In many ways this may be incomplete advice, and an attorney should be consulted in one of the states with a connection to the transaction. Parties should also take heed that, if a state's law would allow you to recover your attorney's fees when you are successful, it very likely will allow your opponent to recover his fees if he is successful. IOW, be careful what you wish for.

[rainier2004]

Yeah, this whole thing sucks.

If you have never been close to someone hooked to drugs the consider yourself lucky. Its worse than you can image as it rips at you, your family and a bunch of various parts of your life you cannot imagine. Can you imagine being "thankful" they're in jail b/c at least they wont wind up dead that night?

Second, Mike is just one the finest people I know. He values integrity and friendships over "stuff" and it sucks that he wound up in this as well.

For that matter it sucks for everyone in this as none had intentions to defraud to "screw" anyone over when conducting the original deals.

I have no answers, just that I'm sorry for everyone involved and the brother needs to be locked up as he has probably done even more damage since this incident and I'm sure it wasn't his first.

Mike - Good luck with the personal situation, just hang in there. Use your cards as an escape as I now you do. Take strength my friend...

[griffon512]

i made what i think was a good sale at the westchester show today. maybe karma had a part to play, maybe it didn't. in the chance it did, i'd like to repay or pay forward some portion of it in what i think is a worthy pursuit. mike, it sounds like you've had a shit time of it recently and it is undeserved given the positive interactions people have had with you.

in that context mike i'd like to send you $75 as a small fraction of the restitution you ultimately deserve of $3,700 plus the additional money you spent acquiring the cards to give back to zach. an honorable act deserves an honorable response...there's not enough instances of this happening and this time i can have some impact on the outcome. hopefully others will follow.

mike, please let me know what paypal address to send the money to and i will send it tonight. if you don't have paypal, please list your street address and i will send you a check. tim, if mike isn't like to read the remainder of this thread please pass along his contact info if you feel it appropriate.

regards, james

[rainier2004]

Originally Posted by griffon512

i made what i think was a good sale at the westchester show today. maybe karma had a part to play, maybe it didn't. in the chance it did, i'd like to repay or pay forward some portion of it in what i think is a worthy pursuit. mike, it sounds like you've had a shit time of it recently and it is undeserved given the positive interactions people have had with you.

in that context mike i'd like to send you $75 as a small fraction of the restitution you ultimately deserve of $3,700 plus the additional money you spent acquiring the cards to give back to zach. an honorable act deserves an honorable response...there's not enough instances of this happening and this time i can have some impact on the outcome. hopefully others will follow.

mike, please let me know what paypal address to send the money to and i will send it tonight. if you don't have paypal, please list your street address and i will send you a check. tim, if mike isn't like to read the remainder of this thread please pass along his contact info if you feel it appropriate.

regards, james

Awesome gesture...very nice bud. I'm not sure Mike would take it, but its an awesome gesture James.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

[griffon512]

my concern is he won't take it from myself and potentially others. i hope it's not seen as an act of charity. it isn't. it's an attempt to remediate a problem when at least a partial solution is readily available, and ultimately would make me feel better for pursuing it.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[timn1]

As mentioned, Mike currently has his hands full with family stuff, plus he was never trying to make this a big public stink, so he may not post much more on it anytime soon. Though he can always correct me, I'm fairly sure he is not interested in suing anyone in any of the 50 states. He knows the amount involved would not be worth the hassles. However, I don't agree with Jeff's suggestion about how the issue is too trivial to be worth having this discussion. Principle is involved.

Here we have people who don't even know Mike offering to defray some of his loss, but the two others directly involved, Chris and Zach, who benefitted from the events and then let Mike do all the dirty work and absorb all the financial loss for eighteen months, should step up and be honorable men about this, and offer to do something.

For those offering money, which is extremely kind of them, I will let Mike tell you whether he wants to accept it. But as his closest friend, I am certain that the lost money has upset him less than the disappointment of seeing two people he also considered hobby friends, so completely fail to hold up their obligation to deal fairly with him when all he wanted was to make a bad situation better.

Tim

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not to fault James in any way but Chris should be making the first move here, then we can see where things end up. I would give him some time first.

[timn1]

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

Originally Posted by griffon512

peter, i understand where you are coming from but i disagree on chris making the first move. chris had plenty of opportunity to make the first move. he didn't. i'm not critical of chris' decision. this is a legal clusterfuck due to the attorney cost vs. potential remediation dollar amount issue, along with how time consuming it would be to pursue a legal remedy. everyone down the chain in this transaction is worse off currently in some form -- whether it be business reputation or financially -- but it is likely that none of these people had malicious intent.

this is an ideal situation where a third party (or parties if others choose to chip in) can step in and pursue an ethical remedy where a legal remedy likely falls short.

if out of pressure from this thread chris revisits the idea of paying for some of mike's cost my actions do not preclude him from doing so, but i do not think that chris should feel that obligation on ethical grounds.

[griffon512]

Originally Posted by timn1

James, it really is kind of you to offer money, but I can't fathom why you would think that Chris should not feel any obligation to do anything about this ???

tim, i'm basing that statement on ethical (not legal) grounds on the following:

1. i'm making the assumption based on what was written in this thread that chris did not know the cards were stolen. obviously chris had no control over what zach's brother did.

2. if he did not know the cards were stolen, he did nothing wrong in the act of purchasing and selling the cards.

3. the cost of anyone down the chain -- none of whom have culpability in the theft -- pursuing legal action against those who do not refund their purchase price is greater in money/time than what they stand to gain from a positive legal outcome (best case scenario of breaking even i presume). this disincentivizes them from pursuing legal action. this is a good example, in my opinion, of the legal system not providing an attractive alternative. as mike stated above, after talking to counsel he made the decision that it would have been potentially cost and time prohibitive for him to legally pursue reimbursement from chris. chris would have been in the same situation if he did reimburse mike, and so forth. ultimately the thief is likely not in a position to make monetary restitution, which would have been the ideal remedy of the legal system.

4. given the above, a third party providing partial or full restitution -- i would like to start if mike is open to it -- seems like a good alternative.

i don't want to get into a long debate on the ethics of this, who is to blame, etc. i stated my opinion and i recognize that reasonable people will disagree on a fair ethical outcome.

i'd rather start the action of making it better for mike, and in turn, me. i would feel better if mike would accept my $75. maybe others will follow. improving mike's life after a tough spell is worth more to me overall than the cost of $75. it starts to reciprocate something honorable that he did.