 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-07-2009, 08:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
And if the seller/thief is in jail and has no resources, what then? Why should an innocent be punished?
|
|
#2
07-07-2009, 08:16 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
And think of the uncertainty "your" regime creates -- no one can be secure in their possessions because it might turn out they were stolen long ago. I think it is just an inherently bad situation with no good answer.
EDIT TO ADD And suppose it's a longer chain than three people -- do you have to unwind it at every step of the way? Suppose the item is the PSA 8 Wagner. It's been through at least five changes of ownership maybe more. Suppose someone could prove it was stolen from them 25 years ago? How do you propose dealing with that? Last edited by Peter_Spaeth; 07-07-2009 at 08:21 PM.
|
|
#3
07-07-2009, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see... forget caveat emptor. The buyer need no longer figure out what he's buying, nor bother to know he has a reliable and trustworthy seller.
I need never buy at full price again. Just find what I want, get someone to steal it, then buy it from them for a close to full price. caveat erus. Let the owner beware.... Guess I need to sell all of my stuff before someone steals it. Truthfully, buy stuff from trustworthy folks. That's a solution.
|
|
#4
07-07-2009, 08:43 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Frank I am just saying I don't like either outcome.
But tell me, how would you resolve my Wagner hypothetical, and I will keep it simple in that there are only 5 intervening transactions (several through auction houses). It's in your courtroom. The owner from 25 years ago convinces you it was stolen from him. What do you do?
|
|
#5
07-07-2009, 09:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Easily, and with good conscience, the stolen Wagner is returned to the original owner. And whoever had possession of the Wagner could seek recourse against the person from whom they bought it.
Needing to know your seller well certainly serves as a deterrent to fencing stolen items, which in turn is a deterrent to theft.
|
|
#6
07-07-2009, 09:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
#7
07-08-2009, 06:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
[QUOTE=FrankWakefield;734585]Easily, and with good conscience, the stolen Wagner is returned to the original owner. And whoever had possession of the Wagner could seek recourse against the person from whom they bought it.
QUOTE] This does not sound like perfect justice to me. So the original owner whose card was worth 25K back when it was stolen now gets a $2 million windfall? And if I owned the Wagner, and am now out $2 million because you ordered me to return it, what's my cause of action against the equally innocent collector or auction house who sold it to me? It can't be rescission because I don't have the card to give back. Are they strictly liable for having sold me stolen property, albeit unknowingly?
|
|
#8
07-08-2009, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Peter,
First, in your example, you didn't own the Wagner, you only had possession of it, ownership remained with the owner from whom it was stolen. Yes, you recover from your seller. Now I don't know about an auction house's liability on conveying good title. I think they'd try to avoid that, I don't believe that auction houses pull items because of that potential liability, but rather to avoid possible criminal charges (once they know, or should know, that a lot may well be stolen). And your seller recovers from his seller, all the way back to the thief. I missed the part where someone who bought a Wagner long ago for $25k wouldn't now be entitled to the card back, even if it had appreciated in value. Are you saying a true owner shouldn't be entitled to the gain?? Steal low, sell high, is that what you're advocating?? At this point I cannot imagine that either of us will change the other's mind; and in no way did I think that a goal here. Simply put, I think the victim of a theft retains ownership, and I see excellent societal reasons for maintaining that. You seem to advocate that a true owner who's victim of a theft reaching a point in time when he'd lose ownership by passage of time, by failing to vigilantly seek and reacquire his personalty, or other ways. I understand that, just don't see the justice in it. It would be good for collectors with good security measures, bad for society. Seems to me that encourages and facilitates the conversion of stolen goods. And with that I think I'm done with this thread. Last edited by FrankWakefield; 07-08-2009 at 06:21 PM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
