NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:58 AM
Snapolit1's Avatar
Snapolit1 Snapolit1 is online now
Ste.ve Na.polit.ano
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,252
Default

wrong thread,.

Last edited by Snapolit1; 01-13-2018 at 10:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:17 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 24,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
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.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 01-13-2018 at 10:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:39 AM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is offline
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 5,287
Default

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

Last edited by ALR-bishop; 01-13-2018 at 10:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:48 AM
the-illini's Avatar
the-illini the-illini is offline
C.hris Bl.and
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Champaign IL
Posts: 514
Default

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
__________________
Looking for:

M101-6 Felix Mendelsohn (any)
1929 Kashin 5x7 Premiums
N172 Old Judge Portraits
Any 1939 Ted Williams cards
1939 Exhibits Lou Gehrig


Will buy or trade for the above. Check out my cards at:

www.imageevent.com/crb972
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-13-2018, 10:51 AM
Leon's Avatar
Leon Leon is online now
Leon
peasant/forum owner
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: near Dallas
Posts: 24,063
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ALR-bishop View Post
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.
__________________
Leon Luckey

Last edited by Leon; 01-13-2018 at 10:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:01 AM
Gradedcardman's Avatar
Gradedcardman Gradedcardman is offline
Adam Goldenberg
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Posts: 1,244
Default Family

It is a family issue. I would feel bad for the original owner but that's a family issue now.
__________________
Adam Goldenberg
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:05 AM
the-illini's Avatar
the-illini the-illini is offline
C.hris Bl.and
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Champaign IL
Posts: 514
Default

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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
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.
__________________
Looking for:

M101-6 Felix Mendelsohn (any)
1929 Kashin 5x7 Premiums
N172 Old Judge Portraits
Any 1939 Ted Williams cards
1939 Exhibits Lou Gehrig


Will buy or trade for the above. Check out my cards at:

www.imageevent.com/crb972
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-13-2018, 11:08 AM
Peter_Spaeth's Avatar
Peter_Spaeth Peter_Spaeth is offline
Peter Spaeth
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 11,589
Default

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.
__________________
Buy high, sell low.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 01-13-2018, 12:04 PM
timn1 timn1 is offline
Tim Newcomb
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 541
Default agree - plus a question for Chris and Zach

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth View Post
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.

Last edited by timn1; 01-13-2018 at 12:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 01-13-2018, 01:55 PM
drcy's Avatar
drcy drcy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1,906
Default

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.

Last edited by drcy; 01-13-2018 at 02:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Metal Lunch Meat Helmet alanu Football Cards Forum 8 12-23-2010 04:32 PM
You have to eat your meat before dessert!! Leon Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 45 07-21-2010 11:03 PM
Network 54 Dinner – Thank You for Having Meat Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 2 08-03-2008 01:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.


ebay GSB