It's now official - Mastro trimmed hisT206 Wagner

[Tanman7baseball]

I'm curious if there is any legal recourse against PSA.[/QUOTE]

Lawyers who are viewing this thread please correct me if I'm wrong..

If Orlando filed for a case, PSA will only be involved if proven to knowingly grade the card with the knowledge of Mastro's trimming. PSA is not liable if they did not know Mastro trimmed it because their duty is to grade/authenticate a card in a reasonable manner. If somehow it is proven PSA breached this duty then they are with recovering the damages. But in the end it's an opinion service, and their reputation is the only thing that will be effected until proven otherwise.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by Tanman7baseball

I'm curious if there is any legal recourse against PSA.

As a lawyer I think that PSA is in a sticky situation. They face some liability because the grader said that he knew the card was trimmed, but still gave it a numerical grade. The real question is will Kendrick, the only person with standing to bring a claim, sue the company. The article seems to indicate that he will not.

Another intersting question is what if any liability they face for allowing the card to remain encapsulated at this point. The cards encapsulation is their seal of approval that the card is an 8 - now it has been legally established that it is altered, thus an A. I am not sure of their policies but I would imagine that there is a provision, or should be, that allows them to buy back cards that were fraudulently encapsulated and remove them. Again issue stems from the knowing encapsulation of the fraudlent card - I would love to see the Justice Department's position.

[Kenny Cole]

[QUOTE] The real question is will Kendrick, the only person with standing to bring a claim, sue the company. The article seems to indicate that he will not.
[QUOTE]

I don't think that statement is accurate at all. IMO, those with standing to sue are everyone who got bid up and purchased the card based upon the false impression that it was actually an 8. The grader's statement makes it real ugly -- sort of in the category of fraud per se. In that regard, PSA certainly can't claim that it didn't expect buyers to rely upon the grade it gave because reliance upon the grade is precisely what it has been selling since day one.

Every purchaser who spent more than they would have had the true condition of the card been disclosed has a claim IMO. There may be defenses to the claim, like the Statute of Limitations, but I'm not seeing them working so well with respect to this particular card. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

[QUOTE=Kenny Cole;1116889][QUOTE] The real question is will Kendrick, the only person with standing to bring a claim, sue the company. The article seems to indicate that he will not.

I don't think that statement is accurate at all. IMO, those with standing to sue are everyone who got bid up and purchased the card based upon the false impression that it was actually an 8. The grader's statement makes it real ugly -- sort of in the category of fraud per se. In that regard, PSA certainly can't claim that it didn't expect buyers to rely upon the grade it gave because reliance upon the grade is precisely what it has been selling since day one.

Every purchaser who spent more than they would have had the true condition of the card been disclosed has a claim IMO. There may be defenses to the claim, like the Statute of Limitations, but I'm not seeing them working so well with respect to this particular card. It will be interesting to see what transpires.

I disagree with you 100%. Every purchaser of the card sold it for a profit. They haven't suffered any harm and thus have no standing to bring a claim. The only person who did suffer harm is Kendrick.

[nolemmings]

First, be careful using the term standing. They may not have an ultimately successful claim for which relief may be granted, but as prior owners of the card who would in some fashion argue that they were impacted by the fraud, they would likely have standing. True they would have to prove damage to sustain the claim, but depending on how they framed their pleadings they should beat any standing claim as such.

As for your assertion that only Mr. Kendrick suffered harm, how is that so unless and until he can show it is worth less than what he paid for it--otherwise he too has a profit (or net zero), and what evidence would you propose he use to show that?

[Peter_Spaeth]

As stated in my post #80, I see this more as a no damages issue than a technical standing issue, but I think we are all on the same page and it comes out to the same thing. The point is that any past owner may have paid a price inflated due to fraud but also sold at a price inflated due to fraud, so they suffered no harm. Put another way, on the front end they were the victim of fraud but on the back end they were the beneficiary.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

As for your assertion that only Mr. Kendrick suffered harm, how is that so unless and until he can show it is worth less than what he paid for it--otherwise he too has a profit (or net zero), and what evidence would you propose he use to show that?

Even then, if the card DID sell for less, wouldn't he still have to show it was due to an inaccurate grade? The other side could argue market conditions (among other things) and it would be up to both sides to make their case. Personally, I believe the owner of the card has the better of the case, but it would still have to be "made", and not a "given" that it was mainly due to being "misgraded".

[WhenItWasAHobby]

I do recall reading that Mr. Kendrick put the Wagner on display at Cooperstown and later at the Diamondback's stadium for the 2011 All-Star Game. If he now continues to publicly display it - especially where money is paid to view it, in my opinion he legally has an obligation to either have the card re-labeled by PSA as AUTH or put an obvious disclaimer on the exhibit stating the card has been trimmed. Of course and even more so the same is true if he decides to resell the card.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

First, be careful using the term standing. They may not have an ultimately successful claim for which relief may be granted, but as prior owners of the card who would in some fashion argue that they were impacted by the fraud, they would likely have standing. True they would have to prove damage to sustain the claim, but depending on how they framed their pleadings they should beat any standing claim as such.

As for your assertion that only Mr. Kendrick suffered harm, how is that so unless and until he can show it is worth less than what he paid for it--otherwise he too has a profit (or net zero), and what evidence would you propose he use to show that?

Standing :The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

No previous owner has legally protectible stake. Feel free to further develop your argument.

The difference between Kendrick and the other owners is that he has not yet sold the card. The prior owners made a profit. Kendrick's financial fate, on the card, is uncertain. In order to prove a harm Kendrick could probably obtain appraisals from auction houses. He would demonstrate a harm by showing that the appraised value of the trimmed card is below the appraised value of the PSA 8. I am addressing the merits of the claim just how it may be proven.

[nolemmings]

Thanks for the definition of legal standing. I had no idea--I just like to talk about legal matters with no working understanding of the operative terms.

Your premise is that no past owner of the card can legally sue-- he has no right to a day in court because he no longer owns the card. In my humble opinion, I believe that premise to be false. He can sue, but he likely will not prevail, at least under the facts as we know them, because he cannot prove at least one essential element of his claim (and there also may be affirmative defenses such as SOL). As in virtually any civil action, a Plaintiff must show that a defendant's conduct caused him damage and then attribute some amount to that damage. If you don't you lose, but that doesn't mean you were barred from asking in the first place because you lacked standing. Now if I tried to sue claiming that the whole fraud ordeal negatively impacted me and/or my collection in some measurable way then yes, I would agree that there is insufficient nexus between me and the alleged wrongdoers to provide standing.

A more interesting scenario presents if the buyer of a PSA 5 Wagner were to argue that he overpaid because the market was artificially inflated by the existence of an "8" that turned out to be bogus, or conversely, if the seller of that same PSA 5 argued that he could have sold for more had there been no 8 on the market because his would have been the highest graded. These people would have a colorable claim (if the facts were right and they could prove them) that they had a legally protectible stake or interest and thus have standing. They would probably lose on the standing issue, IMO, but it wouldn't shock me to see a lawyer at least advance the argument.

In sum, current ownership of property does not define exclusive standing in cases like this, again IMO. Had the owner previous to Kendrick sold it to him at a loss and could show that the fraud had something to do with that loss-- a tough row to hoe, no doubt-- then the fact that he no longer owns the card would not prevent him from suing on the basis of standing. Again, we're dealing in hypotheticals and I don;t foresee any lawsuits from past or current players in this melodrama, but stranger things have happened I'm sure.