Outed cards, now including a 130K gain on an Aaron rookie

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well we saw Sloan urge people to go to their sellers first, way back when this first broke. That said, I am aware of at least one instance where PSA paid someone whose cards had appreciated the difference between his purchase price (which PWCC refunded) and market value. This is the first I've heard of PSA allegedly expressly disclaiming their guarantee altogether. Too many levels of hearsay for me to take it as gospel.

Peter, can you envision a scenario where PWCC refunds the purchase price, PSA refuses to honor its guarantee, and PWCC ends up suing PSA?

That would be very interesting to watch. Because if PWCC is honoring its guarantees (by accepting returns) but PSA is not............

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, can you envision a scenario where PWCC refunds the purchase price, PSA refuses to honor its guarantee, and PWCC ends up suing PSA?

That would be very interesting to watch. Because if PWCC is honoring its guarantees (by accepting returns) but PSA is not............

It would be the owner who would have the claim, not PWCC, if the market price is higher than the refunded purchase price. How is PWCC out anything? It chose to refund presumably because of its own role.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, can you envision a scenario where PWCC refunds the purchase price, PSA refuses to honor its guarantee, and PWCC ends up suing PSA?

That would be very interesting to watch. Because if PWCC is honoring its guarantees (by accepting returns) but PSA is not............

I can’t speak for Peter but I can absolutely see your above scenario unfolding.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I can’t speak for Peter but I can absolutely see your above scenario unfolding.

To me the more likely scenario is PSA issuing a refund and then going after PWCC for violating the terms of service by submitting altered cards.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me the more likely scenario is PSA issuing a refund and then going after PWCC for violating the terms of service by submitting altered cards.

Could very well happen as well....there are gonna be some heated battles

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Could very well happen as well....there are gonna be some heated battles

'heated battles' sending a letter back and forth...wow thats heated..

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I can’t speak for Peter but I can absolutely see your above scenario unfolding.

Customer wants full restitution, PWCC says they will only refund the purchase price, customer goes after PWCC so PWCC, as the submitter of the card for grading, then goes after PSA.

It occurs to me that PWCC already has its lawyer, and I really wonder if something's cooking......

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Customer wants full restitution, PWCC says they will only refund the purchase price, customer goes after PWCC so PWCC, as the submitter of the card for grading, then goes after PSA.

It occurs to me that PWCC already has its lawyer, and I really wonder if something's cooking......

One thing always stays consistent Mark PSA is always an involved party/facilitator .....however they believe their business is Teflon.....so far nothing sticks. When it’s just an opinion and you’re supposed to submit in good faith they could argue in tort court all day and night.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

One thing always stays consistent Mark PSA is always an involved party/facilitator .....however they believe their business is Teflon.....so far nothing sticks. When it’s just an opinion and you’re supposed to submit in good faith they could argue in tort court all day and night.

Proving PWCC (or some other plaintiff, or in a class action) was not acting in good faith might be difficult. Intent is is tough to determine if there is no smoking gun.

Yes it is just an opinion but isn't there supposed to be a guarantee behind that opinion? And if alterations to a card can be proven (meaning, if it can be proven PSA gave cards high grades they did not merit) then would that teflon coating hold up?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Customer wants full restitution, PWCC says they will only refund the purchase price, customer goes after PWCC so PWCC, as the submitter of the card for grading, then goes after PSA.

It occurs to me that PWCC already has its lawyer, and I really wonder if something's cooking......

Why is PWCC obligated to do more? it didn't guarantee its buyers a profit. It's making full restitution by refunding the purchase price. PSA is only obligated to pay market value because those are the terms of its guarantee.

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why is PWCC obligated to do more? it didn't guarantee its buyers a profit. It's making full restitution by refunding the purchase price. PSA is only obligated to pay market value because those are the terms of its guarantee.

They may not actually "guarantee" a profit but all of their slick marketing can presumably make one believe that they do and some good lawyering could probably make that stick...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

They may not actually "guarantee" a profit but all of their slick marketing can presumably make one believe that they do and some good lawyering could probably make that stick...

So if the card has gone down in value does PWCC only owe a partial refund?

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if the card has gone down in value does PWCC only owe a partial refund?

Possibly, depends on how the lawyering goes... if it is proven that PWCC does guarantee a profit, then the decision becomes what is reasonable???