New PSA Terms & Conditions: Comp. Damages and Injunctive Relief for Card Doctoring

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Yes, I think they know. How could they not? As you well know, it's a new world and many collectors don't really care. For 33 years they've controlled their warranty exposure, I see no reason that is going to change.

They've managed their warranty exposure by not honoring it in many cases and by being incompetent in others though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

They've managed their warranty exposure by not honoring it in many cases and by being incompetent in others though.

Right, but the point is it's entirely within their control/discretion. "The graders stand behind the grade." Now what you gonna do, sue? Good luck with that. As the old intro to the Outer Limits went, we control the horizontal, we control the vertical.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Snowman

They've managed their warranty exposure by not honoring it in many cases and by being incompetent in others though.

Their business model seems to be based on the age old strategem of fooling most of the people most of the time. Witness all the talk on this board about whether it's worthwhile (monetarily speaking) to submit/re-submit a card to PSA/SGC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

Their business model seems to be based on the age old strategem of fooling most of the people most of the time. Witness all the talk on this board about whether it's worthwhile (monetarily speaking) to submit/re-submit a card to PSA/SGC.

The questions whether they can authenticate/grade and whether the cards sell are entirely independent at this point. It is self-evidently worth it to submit nearly any valuable card.

[Fred]

Scout's honor, it aint been doctored...

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The questions whether they can authenticate/grade and whether the cards sell are entirely independent at this point. It is self-evidently worth it to submit nearly any valuable card.

That they cannot authenticate/grade is also self-evident. If they could they wouldn't be so desperately trying to divorce themselves from legal liability.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

That they cannot authenticate/grade is also self-evident. If they could they wouldn't be so desperately trying to divorce themselves from legal liability.

How are they desperate? If they were desperate they would just trash the guarantee, like SGC did.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How are they desperate? If they were desperate they would just trash the guarantee, like SGC did.

Seems less like desperation and more like either window dressing, or else trying to return liability to submitters who are either card doctors or are in cahoots with card doctors.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by raulus

Seems less like desperation and more like either window dressing, or else trying to return liability to submitters who are either card doctors or are in cahoots with card doctors.

I'd say the latter. Risk management is part of what I do to for my daily bread. A good part of it is mitigation of liability. I've negotiated a lot of contracts (not a lawyer, FWIW) and I cannot think of a single one where the final issue wasn't either indemnities or the limitation of liability.