Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'll repeat one thing, without seeing the larger scans, I have no idea about the size of the pin holes. Since you are refusing to post the scans until you feel ready to sell the cards, I have to assume you have just as much culpability as Legendary is this. Post the damned scans already. I'm shocked no one else has asked you to do this

Rich

Geez Rich, as I said earlier, either you take it at face value what I'm saying or you don't. Are you going to intervene for me on my behalf? You live in Plano. Come on over to my house and look at them in person. I'm in Fort Worth.

[nolemmings]

You asked for potential resolutions.

Although I seldom sell and have no experience with unsatisfied buyers (at least I recall no complaints), my approach has always been to offer a full refund so long as the item is returned to me in the same condition. No discounts--if there is something about the card that buyer believes makes it worth less than what he wanted to pay, then give it back. I don't believe in post-sale dickering over what might be a fair price--the cynic in me says that it could just be a buyer's tactic to chisel me down, and I'm not about to waste my time.

An auction house may have different marching orders or objectives, however, as there is (supposedly) a "keep the customer satisfied" and "larger picture" business model often in play. I can see them offering a discount to the underbidder's price, but little or no more. Assuming no shilling took place, someone else was willing to pay that next lower price, and even though no longer obligated to do so, those parties might have struck a deal. IMO, you can't assume that the underbidder would not have factored the possibility of pinholes or other undisclosed defects and would have withdrawn his bid had he known "the truth". IOW, there is an established market price of one bid less, and you maybe should get that price. Anything less is at least arguably unfair to the consignor.

So those are my two outcomes--you should be allowed to rescind if that is your wish, or take a slight one-bid discount.

[Runscott]

Legendary posted plenty of large scans for less valuable lots. I won a lot of 7 inexpensive Conlon photos that had huge scans of both fronts and backs: Conlon photos

I was also interested in this very large premium that I thought would go for around $1,500, but it baffled me that the scan posted was so small. Because of this, I assumed they were hiding something: 1904 Pittsburg supplement

My choice was simple: either bid on the supplement expecting the worst-case scenario, or ASK FOR A LARGER SCAN. I was lazy, but I bid low. It turned out that the scan hid some restoration of the item (description: EX/MT appearance with a single fold at center and minor creasing.), but it also hid the quality of the supplement and the frame-job. I luckily did better than expected, but it was pure luck.

David, I think Legendary should have provided larger scans AND described the pinholes, but they didn't, so you should have bid expecting the worst-case-scenario, or asked for larger scans. The fact that the scans were so small should have been a red flag.

Edited to add: The fact that these were in '1' holders also bit you, since '1' includes almost any kind of damage. I once won a holdered 'NM' T206 from Legendary, that had a dot of paper loss. Prior to paying, I was told about it by a fellow board member, so I called Doug Allen and he took it off my invoice immediately.

[steve B]

This one's a bit difficult.

First, I'm not familiar with these, does a pinhole vs a mass of creases make a huge difference in price? They're about equal to me, but if the issue is prone to that sort of hole which sounds like a poorly applied staple, then maybe unstapled but creased would be more desirable.

The scans weren't great. Not even close. Even zoomed in I couldn't see the damage, aside from the scrapbook damage.

But to me, a 10 is going to have some sort of major problem. So I might ask exactly what the problem is.

The other examples, both real and hypothetical don't work for me as they're not quite comparable. The torn program is pretty obviously a bad deal, the hypothetical card with a tear and seller only saying "no holes" when asked about holes is closer, but there the question was asked and only answering the specific question would be pretty sneaky.

When selling I typically went with good scans or pictures, and a brief description. If someone wanted more details I'd do my best to answer.

Also a poor example, but I had a similar issue with an ebay item. A block of four stamps, that turned out to not actually be a block. I waited a day before calling the seller, and realized that because of condition I'd actually make money if I sold them individually. But I called him anyway since the helper had certainly made a misleading scan and listing and I figured he should know. He didn't seem all that interested. (Big seller, with loads of lots and staff)

I think the real catch is here - Relevant line highlighted

Originally Posted by vargha

To your main points, did you even look at the scans? I provided a direct link to the lot on the very first post. Based on their appearances, did they look too good to be 1's? And lastly, are you now introducing intelligence as a factor for disclosure? If so, how un-smart would a person need to be to place some responsibility at the feet of the seller?

Yeah, if you were gambling that the cards were undergraded and might do better a second time around or graded with another company I can see some disappointment. And maybe some reluctance to ask since that might be added to the description if it looked correct.
Nothing against gambling on grades, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's on the buyer if they don't ask. (I've taken a chance on a few graded cards and more ungraded, won a few lost a few, that's the breaks.)

Steve B

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

You're going to have to wait until noon like the rest of us.

Noon in the east has come and gone, and still no scans or narrative about what happened when David contacted Legendary. What's up with that?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Not as many as they used to. Tick, tock.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Legendary posted plenty of large scans for less valuable lots. I won a lot of 7 inexpensive Conlon photos that had huge scans of both fronts and backs: Conlon photos

I was also interested in this very large premium that I thought would go for around $1,500, but it baffled me that the scan posted was so small. Because of this, I assumed they were hiding something: 1904 Pittsburg supplement

My choice was simple: either bid on the supplement expecting the worst-case scenario, or ASK FOR A LARGER SCAN. I was lazy, but I bid low. It turned out that the scan hid some restoration of the item (description: EX/MT appearance with a single fold at center and minor creasing.), but it also hid the quality of the supplement and the frame-job. I luckily did better than expected, but it was pure luck.

David, I think Legendary should have provided larger scans AND described the pinholes, but they didn't, so you should have bid expecting the worst-case-scenario, or asked for larger scans. The fact that the scans were so small should have been a red flag.

Edited to add: The fact that these were in '1' holders also bit you, since '1' includes almost any kind of damage. I once won a holdered 'NM' T206 from Legendary, that had a dot of paper loss. Prior to paying, I was told about it by a fellow board member, so I called Doug Allen and he took it off my invoice immediately.

Scott, I wanted to make a comment on your supplement on the memorabilia side, but it appears you deleted it...just wondering if you took the back of the frame off to see what was on the other side. With the crease in the middle I'm wondering if it came out of a magazine.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Almost 8AM Hawaii time, AND it's Thursday already in some places.....I'm champing on the bit here!

[vargha]

Okay, here’s my take as well as what happened. Take it for what it’s worth, but no scans from me today as I have a crapload of stuff to get done. Maybe I’ll post one tomorrow so all of the board lawyers here can start in on their very gracious offers of representing me pro bono.

First of all, let me say that I do believe that I have some responsibility in this as I should have done better due diligence. I didn’t think a call or request for a better scan was needed, but I obviously misjudged the character of the auctioneer. As Scott and others have said, there is a disturbing pattern of certain scans appearing to be selectively smaller where others are not. While in and of itself, it is not enough to come to a final conclusion, it certainly lends to the narrative that someone was being less than fully upfront in disclosure.

Next, there is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “right” in many instances. Just because I can do something legally, it doesn’t mean that I will do it. I completely disagree with Peter’s “ethics” on disclosure. If I know that there is something that can substantially affect the value of a card or piece, I will disclose it, and will do so on these four cards. I don’t believe that caveat emptor is the way to treat people, and I certainly don’t want to be treated that way either. When listing and selling cards, I have always fully disclosed what I knew. If there were a legitimate problem on the back-end that was not disclosed and that I was unaware of, I made good. My reputation as a buyer, seller and collector is more valuable to me than a few extra bucks.

Someone posted elsewhere about how Rob Lifson offered to make good on a lot that was thought to have been altered, but ending up not being so. I will be listing on the BST a somewhat controversial piece graded SGC Authentic of Black Sox pitcher Claude Williams on the Sacramento PCL team. It was cut to card size from a fan. When I mentioned it on Net54 some years back, after winning it in Goodwin (for around $350, I think), Bill Goodwin personally e-mailed me and told me that if I didn’t want to pay for it, then he had no problem with that. I never contacted him about not paying, and I never implied that in my post on this board either. Yet Bill was so concerned about his reputation, that he said that he should have listed what it was in the listing but did not know the full history of the piece. He didn’t hide behind the SGC slab. That’s what I’m talking about when it comes to doing what is right instead of just what is legal. Apparently, Legendary doesn’t really care in that regard.

When I spoke with Jeff Marren (VP Operations) at Legendary, he basically told me that I had no leg to stand on, and hid behind the SGC 10 label. He said, “I feel like we did our due diligence. They are graded ‘1’.”His position was that he would offer me nothing as compensation for the non-disclosure. I would have liked to see him offer me the buyer’s and seller’s premium back (around $400), but felt that refunding the approximately $260 I paid in buyer’s premium was certainly reasonable. He compared me to dealers who buy large lots of cards in his auctions but then complain that they thought the condition should be better. When I said that holes in cards were a glaring problem for their value, he countered that SGC 10 is “a tick above authentic”, so I needed to deal with that reality (something several people on this thread apparently agree with). When I told him that holes are something that collectors care about, he actually had the audacity to say, “I don’t think everyone will care.” He told me that, “you are getting into some very minute details.” If so, why did other lot descriptions have pinholes mentioned (as someone pointed out earlier)? When I asked him if they knew about the holes when they listed the Oxfords, he flatly denied it and said that they would have put it in the listing if they had known. But why put it in the listing at all if it’s just a “few minute details” that not “everyone will care” about?

I found it very unsatisfying to say the least, but the character of the people who work at Legendary, at least Jeff Marren’s character, has been revealed. I know better next time. So legally, I have no real recourse. And for those of you who take that letter of the law approach, as long as you let it cut both ways in your personal lives, at least you are being consistent. For me, I choose not to take that path. Life is too short for me personally to try to screw people for a few extra bucks, whether it was done with malice or without.

So let’s see if we can get another 100 posts out of this thread.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

Almost 8AM Hawaii time, AND it's Thursday already in some places.....I'm champing on the bit here!

Kudos for using the correct spelling of "champing" rather than "chomping"!

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Noon in the east has come and gone, and still no scans or narrative about what happened when David contacted Legendary. What's up with that?

Sorry, I was 15 minutes late. I know the board Pharisees were upset with that.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by drmondobueno

Exactly.

I can see why someone would want the cards, a sizeable lot of cool prewar cards in good shape for the grade. My first thought on seeing the scans was they were tiny, with no way to blow them up. And where were the back scans? Backs to me show what can not be seen on the front when it comes to serious damage, such as creases, pin holes, tears. Especially with crappy scans. These are worthy of an ebay cheapo screw the buyer auction. Smells of evasion to me. Buyer beware...oh yeah, that is why we are all reading this.

One note. My eyes are not the best, a reason I tend to buy graded cards. My point here is AH know this is typical of older customers and still do this type of piss-poor presentation. I would not do business with this house, except for Leon's rule: they have what I want.

They actually did post the back scans, which is how I knew about the back damage.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You asked for potential resolutions.

Although I seldom sell and have no experience with unsatisfied buyers (at least I recall no complaints), my approach has always been to offer a full refund so long as the item is returned to me in the same condition. No discounts--if there is something about the card that buyer believes makes it worth less than what he wanted to pay, then give it back. I don't believe in post-sale dickering over what might be a fair price--the cynic in me says that it could just be a buyer's tactic to chisel me down, and I'm not about to waste my time.

An auction house may have different marching orders or objectives, however, as there is (supposedly) a "keep the customer satisfied" and "larger picture" business model often in play. I can see them offering a discount to the underbidder's price, but little or no more. Assuming no shilling took place, someone else was willing to pay that next lower price, and even though no longer obligated to do so, those parties might have struck a deal. IMO, you can't assume that the underbidder would not have factored the possibility of pinholes or other undisclosed defects and would have withdrawn his bid had he known "the truth". IOW, there is an established market price of one bid less, and you maybe should get that price. Anything less is at least arguably unfair to the consignor.

So those are my two outcomes--you should be allowed to rescind if that is your wish, or take a slight one-bid discount.

Returning the lot at my expense was the very first offer that I made, and it was roundly dismissed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

Sorry, I was 15 minutes late. I know the board Pharisees were upset with that.

Timeliness is next to godliness.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by steve B

Yeah, if you were gambling that the cards were undergraded and might do better a second time around or graded with another company I can see some disappointment. And maybe some reluctance to ask since that might be added to the description if it looked correct.
Nothing against gambling on grades, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's on the buyer if they don't ask. (I've taken a chance on a few graded cards and more ungraded, won a few lost a few, that's the breaks.)

Steve B

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

[Peter_Spaeth]

David, my answer to your earlier question was a legal opinion, not an ethical opinion. I agree with you there is not always a one to one correspondence between what is right and what does or does not subject one to liability.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David, my answer to your earlier question was a legal opinion, not an ethical opinion. I agree with you there is not always a one to one correspondence between what is right and what does or does not subject one to liability.

Stop it! You are messing with my narrative about lawyers.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by vargha

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

Sean, I will get something up tomorrow.

[nolemmings]

So legally, I have no real recourse

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

With all of the board lawyers here on my (pro bono) team, it just might be the thing to do!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

So if he doesn't have enough to ALLEGE fraud now, what's his colorable claim? Negligence?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vargha

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

This is exactly what I have a problem with and remember you asked for opinions. You admit the cards are graded fairly now but want to SCAM the auction house out of money.

[nolemmings]

Bare minimum: negligent misrepresentation tort claim, rescission contract claim (based at least on mutual mistake--after all, both sides claim no knowledge of pinholes and since AH takes time and effort to identify pinholes in other lots, it obviously considers the fact of such pinholes to be a material consideration in a buyer's decision).

There are likely several other theories available-- I'm not on the clock so I'll leave it at that for now, but it is not difficult to frame a cause of action here. You defense lawyers really need to get out in the light once in awhile.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Bare minimum: negligent misrepresentation tort claim, rescission contract claim (based at least on mutual mistake--after all, both sides claim no knowledge of pinholes and since AH takes time and effort to identify pinholes in other lots, it obviously considers the fact of such pinholes to be a material consideration in a buyer's decision).

There are likely several other theories available-- I'm not on the clock so I'll leave it at that for now, but it is not difficult to frame a cause of action here. You defense lawyers really need to get out in the light once in awhile.

What was the misrepresentation?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by vargha

No, my point was that I thought the cards were fairly graded. I had no intention of cracking and resubmitting them or hyping them as "much better looking than the grade".

Fair enough. I read the comment as you thought they were better than the grade.

If it had been me selling I'd have probably tried to work something out. Over the long run, that's the better way even if it meant a small loss for the AH on the one item.

Steve B

[nolemmings]

What was the misrepresentation?

Misrepresentation can be by omission--see, e.g. Section 551 of the Restatement 2d Torts. I'm defending a case now with trial set in February that is based in large part on this theory.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Misrepresentation can be by omission--see, e.g. Section 551 of the Restatement 2d Torts. I'm defending a case now with trial set in February that is based in large part on this theory.

Yes, but you need a duty to disclose where an omission is concerned, mere fact of materiality doesn't impose a duty. No fiduciary relationship here, no incomplete disclosure rendered misleading by the omission. Maybe something else?

[nolemmings]

In Arizona at least you would have such a duty in virtually any buyer/seller transaction, any transaction in which you have a pecuniary interest.

BTW, the contract claim, again here in AZ, would be pretty close to a dunk if the facts as described were proven true IMO. That would give David his rescission and, as prevailing party, his attorney's fees.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

In Arizona at least you would have such a duty in virtually any buyer/seller transaction, any transaction in which you have a pecuniary interest.

Damn liberal state.

Doesn't follow the Restatement section you quoted, apparently.
"Unless he is under some one of the duties of disclosure stated in Subsection (2), one party to a business transaction is not liable
to the other for harm caused by his failure to disclose to the other facts of which he knows the other is ignorant and which he
further knows the other, if he knew of them, would regard as material in determining his course of action in the transaction in
question."

[autograf]

I'm sure you're familiar with SGC's definition of SGC10............

This card usually exhibits many of these characteristics: heavy print spots, heavy crease(s), pinhole(s), color or focus imperfections or discoloration, surface scuffing or tears, rounded and/or fraying corners, ink or pencil marking(s), and lack of all or some original gloss, small portions of the card may be missing.

Seems like the grade is commensurate with the cards, so I guess had you had full disclosure that there were pinholes (or cuts as you later described them), you would have not bid at the level you did. To me, they look better than a SGC10 with the small scans. I would have asked what made them a SGC10 but they certainly could have/should have noted that the cards had cuts in them.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.............

[nolemmings]

Damn liberal state.

Yup, that sure describes Arizona. A deep blue State all right

[tschock]

Just read through this entire thread. One thing that bugs me.

A ) It seems there is quite a bit of sentiment along the lines that a buyer should buy an SGC 10 with the ASSUMPTION that "these cards were a 10, so you should have expected something that would detract from a higher grade, regardless of what you could actually see or not." Or something along those lines.
B ) Yet the prevailing mantra is "buy the card, not the holder" (implying the grade on the holder).
These 2 ideas are at odds with each other.

Buying an SGC 10 card with "something wrong" where you cannot tell what is wrong is simply buying the holder. The card itself doesn't matter since there is "something wrong", which could be anything that would put that card into a 10 category. If that's the case, then this is NOT a value judgement from the buyer of the card ITSELF. Or at least to what extent the buyer can see from any scans.

Also as we all know, all 10s, 20s, etc are not created equal. And we ALL have our preferences when we "buy the card, not the holder". If a card already has ONE defect that will lower it to a 10, then additional defects don't matter... to the HOLDER. But they might matter to the buyer who is buying the CARD.

This has nothing to do with who's at fault, bad scans, etc. Just to point that A and B above are conflicting positions.

One other thing I find disconcerting, assuming David's discussion with Legendary went down as mentioned, is that Legendary would not accept a return on a SLABBED item yet they offer satisfaction guaranteed?

[Sean1125]

After reading this thread I'm pretty sure I can open my own legal practice.=

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

After reading this thread I'm pretty sure I can open my own legal practice.=

You may wish to add Kevin Quinn as your class action expert.

[glchen]

I haven't read through this entire thread, just the first couple of pages. However, personally, the cards were graded SGC 10/1, Poor. It is what it is, Poor, and I don't think that Legendary has any obligation to accept the return or provide recompensation. To me, this situation like someone buying a card off ebay, and then he tries to flip it, if he doesn't get the price he wants, he files a SNAD claim to return the card. I don't think that's right.

One thing about Legendary scans. I have noticed that Legendary and I'll bring up REA also, both of these notable auction houses have in general small scans for most of their listings, especially lotted listings. You cannot see most of the detail for the cards in their scans. In this day and age where some auction houses like Heritage and Huggins & Scott offer huge scans of the cards, both Legendary and REA are way behind the times. Both of these auction houses should offer much larger scans of all lots in their auctions than they currently do.

[T206Collector]

I too think that when you buy an SGC 10, you can be sure there is a lot of stuff wrong with it that you may not be seeing -- particularly if you're seeing what appears to be a charming little piece of cardboard. In most cases, I personally would just wear the disappointment. Maybe send an annoyed email to the seller/auction house.

Having said that, Legendary should take the cards back under these facts and circumstances (weak scan, little description, disappointed customer, quick return request, etc.). Good customer service is (or should be) such a huge part of this hobby.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Yup, that sure describes Arizona. A deep blue State all right

LOL. Tuscon did elect a Democratic congresswoman though.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

First, as for the lot. I just had some time to look at the cards and I just noticed that there are ten cards of five different players. There are four Alexanders graded SGC 10. Certainly out of the four Alexanders there is one that is preferable to the others. That leaves the only other SGC 10 and that is the Frisch. Hopefully that one doesn't have the major damage that bothers you. So in short, I would pick out the best example of each player and sell the remaining five and try to upgrade the ones you aren't happy with.

Second, I'll thrown in my legal 2 cents even though I'm not a lawyer, but I live in Texas as does David and have had some experience in consumer litigation. As stated by another poster, the SGC 10 definition does appear to describe the wear and damage found on the cards. If David has any chance of a legal remedy he may consider the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It reads as follows and I highlighted in bold #24 on the "Laundry List" which probably has the best chance of prevailing in a court of law - although it still may be a reach in my opinion.


Sec. 17.46. DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL. (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47, 17.58, 17.60, and 17.61 of this code.

(b) Except as provided in Subsection (d) of this section, the term "false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices" includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

(1) passing off goods or services as those of another;

(2) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services;

(3) causing confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another;

(4) using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services;

(5) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;

(6) representing that goods are original or new if they are deteriorated, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand;

(7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;

(8) disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of facts;

(9) advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;

(10) advertising goods or services with intent not to supply a reasonable expectable public demand, unless the advertisements disclosed a limitation of quantity;

(11) making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amount of price reductions;

(12) representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law;

(13) knowingly making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the need for parts, replacement, or repair service;

(14) misrepresenting the authority of a salesman, representative or agent to negotiate the final terms of a consumer transaction;

(15) basing a charge for the repair of any item in whole or in part on a guaranty or warranty instead of on the value of the actual repairs made or work to be performed on the item without stating separately the charges for the work and the charge for the warranty or guaranty, if any;

(16) disconnecting, turning back, or resetting the odometer of any motor vehicle so as to reduce the number of miles indicated on the odometer gauge;

(17) advertising of any sale by fraudulently representing that a person is going out of business;

(18) advertising, selling, or distributing a card which purports to be a prescription drug identification card issued under Section 4151.152, Insurance Code, in accordance with rules adopted by the commissioner of insurance, which offers a discount on the purchase of health care goods or services from a third party provider, and which is not evidence of insurance coverage, unless:

(A) the discount is authorized under an agreement between the seller of the card and the provider of those goods and services or the discount or card is offered to members of the seller;

(B) the seller does not represent that the card provides insurance coverage of any kind; and

(C) the discount is not false, misleading, or deceptive;

(19) using or employing a chain referral sales plan in connection with the sale or offer to sell of goods, merchandise, or anything of value, which uses the sales technique, plan, arrangement, or agreement in which the buyer or prospective buyer is offered the opportunity to purchase merchandise or goods and in connection with the purchase receives the seller's promise or representation that the buyer shall have the right to receive compensation or consideration in any form for furnishing to the seller the names of other prospective buyers if receipt of the compensation or consideration is contingent upon the occurrence of an event subsequent to the time the buyer purchases the merchandise or goods;

(20) representing that a guarantee or warranty confers or involves rights or remedies which it does not have or involve, provided, however, that nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to expand the implied warranty of merchantability as defined in Sections 2.314 through 2.318 and Sections 2A.212 through 2A.216 to involve obligations in excess of those which are appropriate to the goods;

(21) promoting a pyramid promotional scheme, as defined by Section 17.461;

(22) representing that work or services have been performed on, or parts replaced in, goods when the work or services were not performed or the parts replaced;

(23) filing suit founded upon a written contractual obligation of and signed by the defendant to pay money arising out of or based on a consumer transaction for goods, services, loans, or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family, household, or agricultural use in any county other than in the county in which the defendant resides at the time of the commencement of the action or in the county in which the defendant in fact signed the contract; provided, however, that a violation of this subsection shall not occur where it is shown by the person filing such suit he neither knew or had reason to know that the county in which such suit was filed was neither the county in which the defendant resides at the commencement of the suit nor the county in which the defendant in fact signed the contract;

(24) failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed;

(25) using the term "corporation," "incorporated," or an abbreviation of either of those terms in the name of a business entity that is not incorporated under the laws of this state or another jurisdiction;

(26) selling, offering to sell, or illegally promoting an annuity contract under Chapter 22, Acts of the 57th Legislature, 3rd Called Session, 1962 (Article 6228a-5, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), with the intent that the annuity contract will be the subject of a salary reduction agreement, as defined by that Act, if the annuity contract is not an eligible qualified investment under that Act or is not registered with the Teacher Retirement System of Texas as required by Section 8A of that Act; or

(27) taking advantage of a disaster declared by the governor under Chapter 418, Government Code, by:

(A) selling or leasing fuel, food, medicine, or another necessity at an exorbitant or excessive price; or

(B) demanding an exorbitant or excessive price in connection with the sale or lease of fuel, food, medicine, or another necessity.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/BC.17.htm

[Rich Klein]

David:

That is a perfect chance to post those scans and let us see the visual evidence.

Rich

[Fred]

Without having to go through every post, can someone please tell me the lot number and end date for the auction to which this thread was born.

[Rich Klein]

Original Post with link to lot attached

First of all, this isn't a hit and run post. I do need to leave the computer for a couple of hours or so, but I will be back to answer any questions as well as to respond to posts. Here's the situation:

I won the lot of 10 Oxford Confectionery cards slabbed by SGC in the recent Legendary auction. The description was minimal, and the scans were a tad small in my opinion for what I am about to describe. When the cards came in, the four SGC 10 Pete Alexander cards all had damage that was not evident from the scans. Three of them have four small holes apiece where the cardboard is gone (not just thin spots). The fourth card has a half-inch gouge (indentation) on the front that ends in a small pinhole-sized hole. Two of the Alexander cards have scrapbook/back damage. That wasn't disclosed, but was evident enough from the pictures, so I factored that into my bid.

I called Jeff Marren (VP of Operations) today at Legendary. We spoke for about ten minutes on this. Without going into the details yet, what do you think should have been done on Legendary's part both before and after the sale? Areas of discussion might include, but are not limited to, due diligence on my (buyer's) part, disclosure requirements, if any, on graded cards, especially card graded "1", value of the lot/cards with or without the damage, obligations on Legendary's part (if any) post-sale, etc.

Like I said, I will fill in all of the details in a bit. Fire away, please! I have removed the link to the auction page as that no longer works but gives a 404 error message

[tbob]

I went back and looked at the original listing. Legendary normally uses an increased size scan when you click the scan and then one more larger scan when you click the "magnifying glass" icon. In this case, clicking the magnifying glass icon didn't increase the picture. If it had, there wouldn't have been a problem.
The problems with SGC 10s are they vary all over the place from horribly trashed cards to nice looking cards which might just have some back problems. I wish there were a way to grade cards SGC 50 BPL (paper loss on back) or SGC 50 WOB (writing on back). That would be more helpful and fair but I guess it causes more work for the company and some collectors wouldn't care for it.

[Tabe]

My thoughts:

First, "chomping at the bit" is as correct as "champing".

Second, I come down on the side that believes the auction house here was being deceptive and I think it was intentional. I can't fathom that they would not have a company standard as to the DPI card scans should be. The fact that the scans in this auction are so much smaller than those in other auctions tells me they were being intentionally deceptive with their choice of scan size. Yes, it takes longer to do a larger scan - a could seconds at the absolute most. Choosing a smaller scan is deceptive.

Third, I think the auction house should have offered a full refund and no other options. I just fundamentally don't believe in partial refunds.

Fourth, I absolutely do NOT agree that the buyer had any obligation to ask for a better deception or larger scan.


Ch.ris Ta.bar

[Shouldabeena10]

I'm not sure what's worse;

1) The auction house selectively choosing when to mention pinholes / cuts / paper loss in their descriptions, and when to omit them.

2) The auction house obviously having the capability to provide decent sized scans on a $1500 small lot of cards, and choosing not to use it on some, while using it on others.

3) The grading companies, being able to lump together so many different "issues" under the heading of their lowest grade.

4) Or me, spending 30 minutes of my life reading through all 5 pages of lawyer speak in this thread, only to find out at the end ... that Vargha never posted larger scans of the cards either... after promising multiple times to do so.

I'd like to request a pro bono team of Net54 lawyers assemble and file a lawsuit against David for wasting my time, building up my curiosity to see such scans, and then failing to provide them as promised.

David, .... with the let down of expectations, broken promises, bad customer service, and lack of decent sized scans you've failed to provide in this thread .... you could basically run an auction house! ;-) lol

[calvindog]

Lololololol

[howard38]

[

[nsaddict]

Couldn't disagree more than post #144, especially.........

"Fourth, I absolutely do NOT agree that the buyer had any obligation to ask for a better deception or larger scan."

If you're spending your hard earned money you should take 2 minutes to send an email to address your concerns period! If the cards were raw and the defects not mentioned I would agree. Whether an auction house,ebay or the b/s/t here, the buyer should be a bit more vigilant and ask any questions prior to sealing the deal. Since they were the lowest numerical grade by SGC (the board's majority choice) he got exactly what he paid for. I'm not defending Legendary in any way but I feel this is somewhat of a frivolous post to begin with. So now I'm curious, will David bid with them in the future?

[Sean1125]

I am still waiting for large scans of the cards from the original poster to render more of an opinion... I think we need to see how bad the damage is and if it is something that can be made out in the original scan but just will be small due to scan size.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by howard38

A "better deception".....I don't know if that was intentional but I like it!

LOL, wish I could say it was