Brian Drent grades GEM MINT 10 for integrity

[bigfish]

sorry....wrong forum

[Leon]

Originally Posted by bigfish

sorry....wrong forum

C'mon, my man Toby. I got to read what you really thought and I have to agree with you. Sometimes it does get to be a Shiite storm around here. I can safely say I deleted at least 2 posts before I hit the "submit reply" button. Both of those were a bit farther up the string here. And both of those posts came out a little more bitter than yours also.....so, it just wasn't right for "me" to post them. Now, if others want to vent, that's their business. All of that being said I have seen a lot worse . Happy collecting....

just to be clear I deleted my OWN post before I hit the submit button. I don't delete or edit other posts except for every great once in a while per the rules...like taking care of F-bombs

[bigfish]

I hear you but I prefer not to feed into this mess. Dan is a great guy and I prefer to stay out of this one.

Patriots are down by one score.



Leon,

looking forward to seeing you at the PA show. See you in a few days.

[Wite3]

When I started reading this I had hoped that a certain Magie had turned up...

Still, good job Brian (and Dan and Adam).

Joshua

[fkw]

It has a small crease, VG










JK Very Interesting

[Peter_Spaeth]

No win situation for Brian -- no matter what he does someone is going to be unhappy -- hard to fault his choice to return the card to its owner as the consignor maybe still has recourse against the thief.

[pwilk17]

I am by no means an expert in law. It seems to me that there is now verifiable proof that the thief did in fact receive the card (he had it to sell it) and the matter should be escalated with the credit card company that did the charge back. It probably will be a hassle, however I believe it needs to be done. The thief must have some means as he had a credit card with a limit high enough to purchase the card.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No win situation for Brian -- no matter what he does someone is going to be unhappy -- hard to fault his choice to return the card to its owner as the consignor maybe still has recourse against the thief.

Well the "bona fide purchaser for value without notice" doctrine, which applies in many, many jurisdictions assumes the exact opposite. The consignor in this scenario would take good title to the card and it is the person who was originally scammed who must seek his recourse against the "thief".

This is what I've been driving at - the answer to this question is not obvious and may differ depending on where you live.

Cheers,
Blair