FS: 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson PSA 4.5

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_damages

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

I have no idea here but theoretically could PSA argue that their duty to mitigate damages was to do a review of said card at no expense to the owner ?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I have no idea here but theoretically could PSA argue that their duty to mitigate damages was to do a review of said card at no expense to the owner ?

Could be why we arent attorneys!


Counselor Lichtman....please report to the thread lol

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I have no idea here but theoretically could PSA argue that their duty to mitigate damages was to do a review of said card at no expense to the owner ?

I don't follow sorry. AJ would be the one claiming PSA breached the guaranty, so he would be the one with the duty to mitigate his damages. It's the non-breaching party who must mitigate.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't follow sorry. AJ would be the one claiming PSA breached the guaranty, so he would be the one with the duty to mitigate his damages. It's the non-breaching party who must mitigate.

Ok thank you Peter, I did not know that. 👍🏻

So you’re saying an example of his his “duty to mitigate” Would have been him returning the card from whom he purchased for a refund.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Ok thank you Peter, I did not know that. ����

So you’re saying an example of his his “duty to mitigate” Would have been him returning the card from whom he purchased for a refund.

I haven't thought it through completely and am not arguing he failed to mitigate, and indeed there isn't any lawsuit in which the argument would come up, but as a general matter, yes, that could have been one way of mitigating his damages; and another could be to sell the card now.

[Johnny630]

Ok 👍🏻 This is very interested and very informative. I hope things work out for AJ.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Ok ���� This is very interested and very informative. I hope things work out for AJ.

I don't think anyone could now fault him if he sold it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Thanks Peter,


I see this


"Duty to mitigate - the aggrieved party has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages."


When blowout mentioned it was trimmed would have been a good time to mitigate

As I've posted, I thought AJ should have returned the card for a refund which he apparently had the opportunity to do. Not looking to reopen that debate.

More broadly, the duty to mitigate is a powerful concept. It's why a landlord has to make reasonable efforts to re-lease an apartment when the tenant breaches, for example, before being able to recover from the tenant.