some more red meat for all the N54 moralists

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

M definitely should return the cards, now that he knows they are stolen. He can't legally, or ethically, keep stolen property. Cross reference NYPL discussion.

So the question becomes now how does one sort out the mess.

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

M should go to B and ask for a refund since they were stolen, then continue down the line. For every card that M returns upfront, M is out 100% and A is out nothing.

Yeah and I think M is entitled to the refund too because B really had nothing to sell him in the first place. It just bothers me that B then gets stuck holding the bag, assuming B has no recourse against the brother (or was there another intermediary to whom B can now go?).

[timn1]

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by timn1

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Being able to sleep at night -- priceless.

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by timn1

M did return all the cards to the original owner long ago because he thought it was his ethical obligation. He was hoping others would feel a similar obligation, but to my knowledge neither of the other people have offered to reimburse him more than a pittance.

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

[timn1]

He tried. B basically lawyered up and wouldn’t talk to him.

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

M.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

He went to B. B called his lawyer to see what he was obligated to do.

Chris Bland

[egbeachley]

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew or suspected they were stolen.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Lawyered up? Didn't even return the profits? Sounds like B knew they were stolen.

It doesn't matter, because they weren't B's to sell irrespective of what B knew or did not know. M paid for nothing. Although I don't love the outcome, because I feel for B as an innocent, B should refund M and go after his seller.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Exactly why M should have gone to B first and start the unwinding process. M paid the most and is getting screwed the most.

Another reason is that since A got many of his cards back, he may feel that he can ignore police action against his brother. No matter what, the brother should be held accountable, not M.

M had to give them back. A does not have to wait for the cards to go back up the chain, they are A's cards and A gets them from whoever has possession. But that does not preclude M from going after B now.