Baseball card restoration

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

That’s ok. As a lawyer, I’m used to people disagreeing with my legal conclusions. That’s why we have a judge and / or a jury to decide who is correct.

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

Exactly. We don't have to take the seller's word for it, as Greg for some reason seems to think given what he says in post 18.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

As a lawyer, I would be embarrassed to stand in front of a judge and argue that my client knew the card was materially altered but that he still acted in good faith when he failed to disclose it.

I think you are confused about what is good faith, and what is material. You've gone off in the weeds talking about which types of alterations need disclosed. That is an issue of materiality, not good faith. Of course, for non-merchants, that is subjective. But collateral evidence can be used to prove subjective belief. If you sold me an altered card, you better believe I would dig into your hobby knowledge to establish you knew it was material.

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

We will simply have to agree to disagree. LoL.

Sure, but I don't even know what you disagree with. You started out questioning if the fraud 101 principle that concealment of a material fact can be fraud applied at all to baseball cards. Post 15. I really don't even know now what you're trying to show. Anyhow, fine to leave it there.