Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

[autograf]

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

[Leon]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

Infraction given again......NO mentioning of POLITICS......

[Leon]

I don't think Legendary purposely left out the mention of the holes or purposely made small scans to deceive. They should make their scans a bit larger, that is what they are guilty of. But they are 1s, if they look too good, you know there has to be an issue. I told David what I thought before he started this thread.....and if I were the auction house would have probably helped a little bit to offset the decreased value of the pinholes.....but not a lot.

I help run a smaller auction so it's not apples to apples, but I prefer to have very large scans, which take some time to do, instead of flowery descriptions.....

[nolemmings]

I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed.

Your assumption was reasonable. It would not have been difficult to identify the pinholes-- I searched their auction using the term "pinhole" and found 19 lots where that term was used. Granted, almost all were raw cards that perhaps merit a more thorough description, but 2-3 graded wrappers included the term in the description. I also noted a lot of 12 T205s where the scans of individual cards were larger and appeared clearer than these Oxfords.
I believe it a fair question to ask whether these scans were shown as they are on purpose and whether the omission of the pinholes in the description was deliberate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.