That is a different situation though. Personally I think whatever rule we (meaning collectors in general) establish to deal with situations involving stolen goods should encourage two types of behavior:

1) it should require dealers to exercise due diligence when purchasing cards. If they fail to do so (say by turning a blind eye to cards from a suspicious source, etc), they should eat the loss.
2) it should encourage collectors to take reasonable measures to safeguard their collections from theft. If they fail to do so they should eat the loss, unless they can show the dealer failed to exercise due diligence per 1 above, in which case the dealer should eat the loss regardless of the collector's negligence.

I think this is a better rule than merely saying "stolen goods should be returned always no matter what", which is a rule that encourages neither due diligence on the part of dealers (because if that is the rule they know they will have to give back cards regardless of whether or not they acted properly, so why would they bother going to the trouble) or appropriate care by collectors (for the same reason).

In the OP's scenario, all the facts which led to the loss in the first place are attributable to A rather than M. A had a drug addict thief for a brother? How is that M's fault? A put his cards where his brother had access? How is that M's fault?

Also since whoever eats the loss is going to have a claim against A's brother, it makes little sense to put M, who does not know or have any connection to the brother, in that position rather than A, who presumably (since its his brother) has a much closer connection to that person. If anyone is going to have a chance at getting money out of the real culprit it is A rather than M.

Conversely, nothing in the facts suggest that M did not exercise due diligence in making the purchase (unless I am missing something).

So I stand by my belief that M should not have been obligated to return the cards. It speaks well to his character and honesty as a dealer that he did so, but I don't think he should be been obligated to.

Legally speaking ...
 

Dealer B seems to believe that he has no obligations vis-à-vis my friend M, which may well be true legally. But it still surprises me that a well known dealer is willing to risk his reputation for a couple thousand dollars.

I got to thinking about this unresolved issue as I watched people sharpening their knives and hatching their zany theories about Al C., who I believe to be the epitome of an honest broker. I wondered why this other guy should be getting a total pass in comparison.

Tim

Questions
 

Did A - report the theft to the Police?

Did A - cooperate with the Police investigation?

And what does M's lawyer say? M paid B for goods that turned out to be stolen and had no value because he was obligated to return them. Why doesn't M have a right to his money back?

More specifically, I believe M can sue B for breach of warranty of title, because B impliedly warranted he had title to the goods he was selling, whereas he did not. M should not be cowed because of what B claims his lawyer told him.

Hypothetically:

In this scenario I see no one but "A" who has a problem.

That said cards are/were his is an allegation.
That a theft took place is unsubstantiated.
Even if both are true he exercised negligence in not insuring his property.
The commodity in question is generic and bearer indemnified.


I would draw a different set of conclusions were the items tracable via third party grading identicication or set registry, and a timely police report filed and verifiable. However, as any other player in this vignette I would do only what I was legally compelled to. Sorry

I'm aware that this is colored by the fact that these parties know each other, and while I think 'M" actions very commendable I feel he went way out of his way.

I will add the Dealer "B" (good hint BTW) bought the cards for pennies on the dollar and he was more worried about keeping the money than doing the right thing. Im sure after I left the table dealer B spoke to his wife who was hovering around and making sure I wasnt listening. Where was Jerry S and the tape recorder at?

Legally, M doesn't return them or have direct financial obligation to A. With stolen property, you move step-by-step down the chain of custody and M returns them for refund from the person he bought them from. That's if you want to solve this by rule of law-- if the parties wish to work it out some other way the could do that.

This is why you are supposed to keep the receipt. Becuase if something turns out to have been stolen (even if five owners earlier), you get the refund from the person you bought the item from.

A's main course of action, it seems to me, is with his brother that originally stole/sold them.

Great questions Frank.

That is news to me
 

JC,
Thanks for your support here. I was not aware of this before, and It makes me feel I am doing the right thing by bringing this back up after 18 months. No doubt A and B were hoping that everyone who knew about this would just forget about it.

But M is my dearest friend in the world and this has caused him a lot of hurt - so I am not forgetting, or forgiving.