|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
After further consideration, and before I read your latest post, my thought on your question is this. I would not think it's interference for someone to come forward with information about a bad deal (in this case a bad card in a holder). HOWEVER, if one is to come forward then they must help the seller, with their knowledge, to get resolution from the grading company. Even if they don't win they must help. If they won't do that then they shouldn't say anthing. Sort of like testifying but not under oath? Doesn't hold much weight.....I know I am swimming with sharks anytime I talk about law, with absolutely no education...but that's how I see it.... (Somewhat the same as anonymity but every case is different)... |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
It would be really lame in my opinion if someone posted information that a card was suspect then won it (or bought it at a reduced price) himself or herself. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: warshawlaw
by your apparent devotion to me. Between the unprovoked emails (your last one led to your being placed on my spam list, BTW, so no need to send more), the way you single me out from everyone else in your most provocative posts, and the countless hours you obviously spend tracking my posts and going out of your way drafting your little responses, I must have assumed a great deal of importance to you. As the old ad asked, is it love or obsession? Either way, I'm already spoken for. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
Wartslob, |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: barrysloate
Uh-oh, another fight is brewing. Hasn't the board gotten a little testy lately? Getting back on topic, I think when a third party interferes with a sale nothing good can come from it. It's done with the intention of undermining it in some way. Obviously, if you can protect someone from buying an altered card that you know something about, that would not be considered interfering. But you better be absolutely certain. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
Barry, I think we come out the same place, but I would definitely call that interfering, just with good intentions. If it disrupts the sale, isn't the result to the seller the same? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: barrysloate
Is the interference done in good faith to help someone or is it done just to instigate trouble? That is the difference. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Mark
It's funny to me how many people say it makes absolutely no difference how much a seller paid for a card yet support a new rule intended to keep potential buyers from finding this information out. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
Of course it's interfering. That's obvious...but it's interfering for a good reason..Let's keep it in context. I wouldn't want to make the rule any more formal than it is....heck, I'll bet one of you lawyers could charge about 50 hours to write that one ..... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Mark
How about factual mistakes and outright lying? |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Ok, why in the world are you so concerned about this Mark? You never sell a thing on bst, you rarely if ever post on the forum anymore, and as far as I can tell, never respond to any listing on bst. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
Methinks we are on one of them slippery slopes lol, Mark. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
I haven't deleted anything in this thread...that I remember..(it's been a long day and I wouldn't want to say I didn't when I did...but don't think I did)..there have been no anonymous posts.... |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
My bad - It was in another thread that I just found - so much flaming going on lately its hard to keep track. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Mark
Josh, I have actually purchased thousands of dollars of cards on BST this year, I just don't mark them with "email sent" like I guess you do. Last week, I sold $725 of cards on BST. Thanks for your concern. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: joe
Boy Leon when you start a thread, it gets a lot of action. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
I don't really think it's that slippery unless there are some commercial laws I don't know (which would include 98% of them)...Since we are here I cut and pasted Mark's response so I could answer it....This is kind of fun.... |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Cobby33
A lot of people on this Board are masters of their own domain. Maybe something needs to change about that? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
What if I know for a fact the card was bumped from a 4 to a 5 holder? Is that providing material information or is it improper interference? |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Wow, Im very impressed Mark. I guess you are very fortunate that no one has tried to interfere with any of your transactions. I asked a simple question above that you have yet to answer (as far as I can tell). That is, why should someone be allowed to interfere with an above-board listing (ie no lying, altered cards, etc) simply because he/she believes that the asking price is too high? As far as saying something like "I have 500 in the card" that is nothing more than puffery and if someone is stupid enough to do it right after their auction ended, their rep will get around. Though frankly, to me, something like that is pretty harmless - if someone told me that they had 500 in a card (but really had 200) and they were selling the card for 550 - the amount they had in it really wouldnt factor into my decision. I would buy it if the price was reasonable and walk away if it wasnt. Its really no different than if that same person said despite it only costing me 250, I wont go a cent lower than $500. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Peter, |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Peter Spaeth
I would want to know if a card had been bumped a grade, even though in the final analysis I might decide I didn't care. Although I can see going either way on this one. I do think however that it would be hard to write hard and fast rules on this subject. For the same reason legislatures write vague laws and leave their interpretation to the courts. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Mark
"Puffery" is a seller's expression of opinion like it's a "really good card." It's legal. Saying one paid $500 when he paid something less is a factual misrepresentation, and is not puffery. If a trier of fact determines that such a misrepresenation is material, then it becomes fraud (illegal). Hope that helps. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Saying you have 500 in a card when you dont does not change anything about the card itself and certainly doesnt misrepresent a material fact about the card (ie its real, its not trimmed, etc) and is far closer to puffery or salesmanship than a material misrepresentation. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Mark
Josh K, puffery is "an expression of opinion by seller not made as a representation of fact." That's straight from my Black's Law Dictionary. Purchase price is a factual statement, the opposite of puffery, not "close to puffery." |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: t206King
Listen, i meant that a card worth what u paid. end of story. if you pay 200 for a card and try to charge 400 or 500 for a card when ppl on the BST state its worth just alittle more or less than 200, why do ppl get bent out of shape. merely trying to help the buyer..... |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Dave
Exactly....trying to help the buyer on something you know nothing about. I'm sorry, I won't jump to that conclusion. Do you T206King know about mello-mints to the point of their value?? Since I looked it up on an auction site, and found that there has been no recorded auctions for McGraw, I'm wondering what makes you seem to know what the correct ballpark is for the card??? There was one Matty in a SGC10 that went for right at $800 bucks. There was one common Schlei that went in a SGC20 that went for $255. Other than that for the most part, the only E105's sold have been high end, in the thousands of dollars. However, you King, have the knowledge to say that the McGraw, a HOFer, is a $200 or so....card. That the McGraw if put in an SGC10, which it would be, would bring similar auction prices that the common player Schlei has brought....amazing. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Chris Bland
You found all this out and still had to make a post on the main board asking if you had paid too much? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Dave
I found out all this today!!!!! my god. Point is, I didnt know at the time. I also didnt express my opinion on someone's thread on the B/S/T without a bit of knowledge about the subject at hand. Had a wanted to sell the damn card to begin with, I wouldnt have said what I paid for it. King isn't even an expert on the subject. He said himself he wrote that because "someone" on the board said it was a $200 card. I find this so freaking ridicilious that he can express his opinion on the B/S/T thread.. opinion. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Chris Bland
Dave, |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Dave
I hope you read all the way from top to bottom. I'm not going through it again. If you or anyone else wants more clarified your more than welcome to email me. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
What you are saying is I got it right? I actually agree with you on this one. I tried not to but couldn't help it. I think I totally blew the verbiage but had the intent. For all of the drama...the rule is staying the same as I think it's the right thing to do.... |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Chris Bland
Dave, |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Wesley
Chris, Dave said earlier that every card is for sale. If people supplement their incomes by flipping cards good for them. If people want to price their cards on the main forum then I guess it is their perogative. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Dave
I'm a civil engineer. I work with numbers all the time. I price jobs, and I manage them to make sure multi-million dollar asphalt jobs stay within costs. Anyone that questions my motives.....delibarately putting the price I paid in writing on a thread, with the pre-conceived notion of I'm then going to go to the B/S/T and ask for two times that amount, doesn't know what they are talking about. As I originally said, I had offers right away on the card from people. One offer, I said ok to...he said give him til the end of the week to make arrangements, and said if I could get more for the card before then, then fine he understood. My only motive in selling the card was when I was approached by that individual for a certain sum of money, and thats that. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
t206king - a card is not always worth what you paid. obviously you havent done enough buying and selling to figure that out. I bought an e93 wagner for 900. I can tell you for a certainty that the card is worth well over 2000. I buy cards on ebay all the time for prices that are lower than what I believe I will later be able to sell a card for. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Chris Bland
Wesley, |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Wesley
I saw the Mello-Mint thread as a combination of Dave pricing the card and marketing the card for sale at the same time. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: leon
Did all of that mean that you are saying you can lie, and lieing is not considered fraud? |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Cobby33
Leon- There really aren't enough facts in that hypothetical to make a call one way or another. I think for our purposes, it would be suicide to one's business dealings with others in this (usually) tight-knit community. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: jay behrens
I wonder what the new owner of my e90-3 Hofman error would think if he knew I only paid $13 for that card a few years earlier. For those that don't know, final hammer on it, w/o juice, was $2750.00 |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Kenny Cole
Josh, |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Cobby33
I'm pretty sure s/he wouldn't care. Most people pay what they pay because it's worth that to them. Econ 1A. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
One other thing Mark, I dont believe that lying about the purchase price is "acceptable salesmanship". I just dont believe that it rises to the level of fraud. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Cobby33
Whether it's Fraud/Misrep. or not (check the new jury instructions in CA), there's always the issue of damages, which is a key element most litigants dismiss and later get pissed off at their attorneys for not emphasizing that to them. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Kenny, |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Kenny Cole
Josh, |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: JK
Ken, |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
New Board Rule
Posted By: Cobby33
Summary judgment granted in favor of plaintiff. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NO Private Emails posted on this board - rule | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 162 | 09-26-2007 09:02 AM |
You guys rule | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 10-12-2006 01:32 PM |
:::::===- - - - DOTS RULE - - -===::::: | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 09-30-2006 07:28 PM |
A board protocol/rule question | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 26 | 09-06-2006 10:06 PM |
New board rule about publicly complaining about an expert's LOA | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 02-10-2005 03:49 PM |