Would you follow through and pay? Brady's last TD

[RedsFan1941]

auction sells a ticket stub from feller’s opening day no hitter. correctly markets that no-hitter as the ONLY one to happen on opening day. days after the auction ends, a no-hitter gets thrown on opening day. that sale gets voided too?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

auction sells a ticket stub from feller’s opening day no hitter. correctly markets that no-hitter as the ONLY one to happen on opening day. days after the auction ends, a no-hitter gets thrown on opening day. that sale gets voided too?

No because in that context the clear import is only that it's the only one that has happened SO FAR; there is no implication there will never be another one. Leland's arguably went further, but I say arguably because one could also argue they didn't.

[RedsFan1941]

but the buyer is not receiving what he paid for, which is an argument i have read often about the brady ball.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

but the buyer is not receiving what he paid for, which is an argument i have read often about the brady ball.

Sure he is. He bid for the only opening day no hitter ticket TO DATE. And that's what he got. I mean ticket to the only opening day no hitter.

[Snapolit1]

deleted

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

No one has answered a question I posted a few up . . . . .

I purchased the oldest Lou Gehrig contract EXTANT a few years ago. It wasn't sold as the oldest contract now known . . . it was sold as the oldest Gehrig contract EXTANT i.e., existing

Is that a representation breached if another older contract comes to light tomorrow?

I would say yes.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I would say yes.

Agree. Fatally poor choice of words by seller.