My first thought is that since she is a PH.D, she is used to doing research IN HER FIELD. When something is out of her field of knowlege or discipline, is she going to take the time to research it? No, she is going to LOOK FOR an expert IN THAT OTHER FIELD.
She finds Richard and reaches out to him for his EXPERTISE.
Now Richard, having seen this type of situation before and knowing it is OUT OF HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE, recommends she find an attorney.
Look, my Mom doesn't know much about baseball but she DOES know the names of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. So, I am sure if she had the chance to buy an autographed baseball at a charity auction or church function for an amount she could afford (and she couldn't get me there to make sure it wasn't a fake) she would do so.
I think the blame should be spread out as follows: 1) to the person who donated the ball for doing so (if they knew it was fake). 2) to the charity auction for saying it was authentic (if they had no proof to back up this claim). 3) Most importantly, to the "sports auction house" who bought and paid for the ball without it having been authenticated first.
If there was no claim of authenticity given by the PH.D lady and the "sports auction house" bought the ball thinking they were getting a good deal and could make a profit on it, then they should take the hit for NOT KNOWING what they were buying.
I mean, isn't THAT what happens in the real world all the time? Businesses that know what they are doing stay in business while those that don't, fail?
|