RockMyAmadeus

There are people who will buy, and can sell, raw books for the same price as a slabbed copy "in the same grade"...even up to 9.8. I paid the "9.8 price" for a couple of books a few months ago, because they were all day long 9.8. I didn't need the slab to tell me that, but eventually, into the slab they will go, because most buyers do.

Sandman works best when the reader has a better-than-average grasp of ancient and modern mythologies...one has to read more than just comic books to appreciate it. Writers like Moore, Gaiman, and Morrison use all of literature, history, and philosophy to draw inspiration.

No one's forcing you to read, counselor...

I bet you think this post is about you.... You err in a few ways: 1. You're not the only person to have taken part in this conversation, nor the only one to take the position you're taking. 2. Your statements were not misrepresented. I made a general statement, in a reply to Bababooey. I was neither quoting you, nor replying to you. 3. The position which you AND OTHERS have taken was that "I don't know" means the buyer, if he or she goes ahead with the transaction, accepts the item as THE SELLER says it is, potential problems or not, restored or not, inspected or not, and if it's discovered that it has restoration, the buyer does not have the right to reject it, because of some strange philosophy which says the buyer accepting the seller's ignorance about the item is the same thing as the buyer accepting the item itself without question or objection. In other words: "I don't know...and neither can you." True. But one of us IS correct. Which one....? So, let me make sure I understand you: if you, the seller, the one who is responsible for knowing what he is selling, sell a book to someone that is restored...but you don't know it...and the buyer discovers it...you'll try to work something out with them...? That's very sporting of you! "I don't know" doesn't relieve a seller of any and all responsibility. That's not how it works. The buyer has the right to inspect. If the seller doesn't know if it's restored or not, not a problem...if the buyer discovers it has resto, the seller is obligated to take it back, if that's what the buyer wants. Not difficult. I wouldn't be in that position (of saying "I don't know"), because I know how to detect resto. Not because I'm any great shakes, but because I took the time and effort to get educated on the matter. If I missed it, I would apologize profusely (because we all make mistakes), and take the book back, without question, and pay the buyer's shipping both ways, so they would be out nothing. If they had it slabbed, I would pay that, too, without even a hint of resistance. I might even compensate them for me wasting their time. Whatever the buyer thought was reasonable. Obviously, it would be necessary to prove that it was the same book, but as I maintain a pictorial database of all the books I've sold, it wouldn't be difficult. I'd do a quick comparison of the photos, and if they were a match, I'd offer to refund the buyer. If the transaction was so old that I couldn't find photos, I'd still have the buyer's contact info in Paypal, going back to 2013, I believe, and can confirm the transaction. I'd discuss it at that point. To date, I have never had anyone take me up on that offer, and I have sold acres of raw books, both restored and unrestored. What's a reasonable amount of time for the average buyer or seller on eBay? Probably about a month or two. Most books can be evaluated at CGC in that time frame, especially with fast track for the cheaper tiers.

For those interested, ASM #365 was and is the highest printed book of the entire run of ASM. It remains the only issue of ASM to be printed at a million+ copies. Marvel made an absolute mint that month...then frittered it all away....

That's what you get for posting. Attracts attention. Two years, and no one noticed....

To expound on this point (because I believe it's an interesting part of how the market works), CBCS books generally...not always, but generally...sell for less than CGC. Why? The "objective problem" issue is taken completely off the table when your book is graded by CBCS. You are just as likely to get a book with missed resto or unknown missing parts in a CBCS slab as you are a CGC slab (which is to say "extremely unlikely"), and CBCS has proven to be about even in grading consistency with CGC...and even stricter (until recently) with regards to modern books. So, why are buyers paying less for CBCS books, generally? I believe it's nothing more than brand recognition and trust...which has nothing whatsoever to do with factors like the potential for restoration or missing pages. And if that's true for items that are generally, for all intents and purposes, functionally identical, how much moreso for items that are not? So, the idea that raw books "sell for less" than CGC books because "the market" compensates buyers for the "risk" of undisclosed restoration or missing pages and the like is an overly simplistic one that doesn't understand, or fails to recognize, that there are multiple other factors involved in determining the price of any particular item on the open market. Not that it is entirely without merit...it's definitely A factor...but it's hardly a driving factor, or even one of the more important factors, and certainly cannot be used to justify telling the buyer "you assumed the risk, because you paid less for that raw book than you would have if it were slabbed. That's why the book cost you less."...which, of course, is not a claim anyone can make, especially if it didn't "cost you less." After all...if you "overpay" for the book, does that mean you're then entitled to have it be restoration free and complete...? No, you're entitled to have it be restoration free and complete regardless of the price you paid, and if not and the seller didn't disclose it...whether they knew about it or not...you have the right to return it for a refund, within the parameters of the law and common practice. Suggesting your rights are dependent on the price you paid is a bad argument, which enables fraud.

Strawman argument. If you're going to quote me, make sure you don't introduce typos that aren't in my original post. Also, that post was in reply to Bababooey, not you. And I don't think you understand what a "strawman argument" means, as you are using it incorrectly here. A "strawman argument" is an argument that misrepresents/misstates what someone else said, and then argues against that misrepresentation (the "strawman") as if the other party said that. That's not what I've done here. I did not misrepresent nor misstate anything that either you or Bababooey said. Correct. It means "I don't know." It does not mean "...and neither can you." We agree. That's why context is king. One's words cannot be twisted, or "twisted", if context is understood and preserved. I never said you did, either. Again, that comment was to Bababooey, not you. However, you're still making the same fallacious arguments. 1. "I don't know" is not a description of the item or its qualities. It therefore cannot be used as an argument to claim "the item is as described." If it's NOT described...then that non-description cannot be used as a description, since it could mean literally anything. I am inelegantly wording it, but my point should be clear. 2. You keep trying to change the parameters of the description. "I don't know" does not mean the book is being "advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored." Those are not the same representations. What you're continuing to ignore is the plain fact that, as likely as the book is to be restored, it is just as likely to be UNrestored. If the buyer later finds NO restoration, guess what...? The book is also "as advertised." 3. Any "reasonable person" would not conclude, despite your assertion, that "I don't know" is the same thing as "it's advertised, priced and sold as being possibly restored." You cannot conclude any of that from "I don't know", and you're adding unknowable variables ("priced...as being possibly advertised") which haven't even been part of this discussion. Again...it's a very clever, novel approach you're trying to argue, and I'm not smart enough to unravel it succinctly, but it doesn't hold water. Sorry. The double negative aside, "I don't know" does not address anything. It is the ultimate expression of "not addressing." Come on, you're just messing with me now, right...?

You have ripped that statement out of its context, and completely altered it in the process. This is, unfortunately, a very, very common problem on the internet, which is why the "book length" posts become necessary. The "discount price argument" has to do with the (fallacious and overly simplistic) idea that "CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts" on the open market for a "reason", and that reason is because you are, in theory, "accepting" the risk involved with buying raw books, and therefore, the market "pays less" for raw books to compensate for that risk, which, by that reasoning, includes objective problems like the presence of restoration or missing pages or the like. It is a fallacious argument because 1. it's not true that all CGC books sell for more than their raw counterparts, 2. there's a wide variety in production quality, grading consistency, seller reputation, and other factors which influence prices in ways that cannot be transferred from slab to slab (even in the same grade), much less trying to compare a slabbed book with a raw book. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do...like, at all...in any respect...(have I belabored the point enough..?) to do with a discount price offered by a seller because of the potential for unknown problems that might exist with their specific item. They are two separate, entirely different, points. Context is king. That is not correct, and you have misunderstood what was said. The seller doesn't "sell it at a discounted price compared to a genuinely unrestored copy." The seller sells it at a discount compared to their own original asking price. You have to understand what the other person is saying before you can formulate a counterargument.

It's an 8.5++++++++++++++

Not necessarily. Maybe yes, maybe no. A seller automatically discounting (without mention) for any and all potential problems may be doing himself a disservice; after all, there's just as much chance the book is not restored, if they genuinely don't know, and pricing at a substantial discount (when compared to similar items in similar condition) would potentially be shortchanging themselves, if they're even aware there could be a problem in the first place. Typically, when sellers acknowledge there could be serious problems that they aren't capable of detecting, they can state that upfront, like "this item could potentially be X, so it is offered at a discount of Y to account for that potential." That language would, in my mind, release the seller from liability, because they've acknowledged the potential problem upfront and offered something in consideration for that potential (in a fixed price format, of course.) Of course, that would be substantially more than "I don't know", and would put the buyer on notice...which should be the goal in the first place. If the book ends up restored, well, the buyer got a discount in consideration of that. If it doesn't...hey, bonus. A seller doing that would be much further than the "I don't know" scenario that is the heart of this discussion. I agree. Selling "as is" is perfectly acceptable, but it hinges on the buyer being able to inspect for him/herself, or have it inspected by someone in the business of doing that. If the buyer cannot inspect, if the seller denies the buyer the right to inspect, you no longer have the free and willing exchange of goods. "I don't know" does not mean "...and neither can you."

Correct. Correct. "Uncertainty" does not relieve the seller of any responsibility. "Uncertainty" doesn't mean the buyer forfeits his right to inspection. "I don't know" is not a description of the item. It is a description of the (potential) state of mind of the seller. "I don't know" is not something that can be bought and sold, nor is it a quality of an item. Good try, though! A novel approach, at least! The buyer does not forfeit his right to inspection of the item upon receipt merely because he did not state that right upfront, regardless of what the seller (or you) may believe. Sales of goods are ALWAYS...per the Uniform Commercial Code...conditional on the acceptance of the buyer following an inspection for conformity. Despite your claims, restoration is, in fact, non-conformity. Again: Restoration is a deliberate attempt to alter the item from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is. The item is no longer original. Here's some relevant language from the UCC: "The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it" Does restoration substantially impair the value of a comic? I would suggest it does. Incorrect. I'm not saying the seller should have said anything. I'm saying the only time a seller could say "I don't know" and not face potential liability is to offer the buyer a discount off the selling price to which the buyer will agree; usually amounting to the loss in value if the item does, in fact, have the suspected issues, which is a fairly common practice. That's not only not absurd, it's fairly common practice in situations where the seller is genuinely unsure of what he is selling. "I don't know" is an acknowledgement of a lack of information. The way a buyer "knows what he is buying" is to exercise his right to inspect when he receives the item. The item cannot be BOTH restored AND unrestored; therefore, "as is" sales, which is what your position boils down to, do not preclude a buyer exercising his right to inspect. The buyer does not assume the risk of the seller's uncertainty as a condition of sale, nor as a means of forfeiting his right to inspect, and the seller cannot disclaim all responsibility by claiming ignorance. The seller admits to a lack of knowledge, and the buyer acknowledges said lack of knowledge; nothing more, and nothing less, which makes the exercise of the buyer's right to inspect all the more vital. And the seller was also clearly selling a book that the buyer KNEW might not be restored. So? The buyer doesn't assume the risk of the seller's uncertainty, simply because the seller asserts his uncertainty. Now THAT would be absurd. Saying someone KNOWS an item might be something is meaningless, because that can be applied to anything. After all...every single raw book that exists you KNOW might be restored. That's a completely true statement that has no actual meaning. Does that therefore mean that you assume the risk, as a buyer, for every single book for which a seller claims ignorance? You can see how that argument quickly falls apart. The operative part here is that neither the buyer nor the seller actually knew if it was restored or was not restored...hence, the need for inspection upon receipt. Why do you put "inspection" in quotation marks, as if you are suggesting that the buyer doesn't have that right? As for your claim, the reverse is also true. Had the buyer (not seller) ended up with a book that was indeed UNrestored...he also would have received exactly what he bargained and paid for. And since either statement can be true, and are both equally likely outcomes in this scenario, your logic...that by doing so, the buyer assumed the risk of restoration being present and forfeited his right to inspect...does not follow. No, and no, for the reasons stated above.

PO Box 4738 Sarasota, FL 34230

Those are beautiful. Just beautiful. All sorts of people who are no longer with us. How wonderful.

The reason these things are codified the way they are is so that sellers cannot claim ignorance and defraud buyers. The burden of accurately describing an item for sale is on the seller. The seller can sell an item "as is"...but they must also allow the item to be inspected by the buyer prior to purchase OR acceptance (which are two different things.) If a buyer didn't have the right of inspection upon receipt, any seller could knowingly sell anything they wanted, and claim "I don't know...and I told you I didn't know, and you accepted that, so too bad, you're stuck with it, suckah!" And how are you going to prove that the seller knew...? (You're not, in nearly all cases.) No. That's not how the law works. The law is designed to protect both parties in the transaction, which means that the seller can say "I don't know"...but the buyer always maintains the right to inspect AND reject if that's the case. A seller doesn't get to hide behind "Well, I TOLD you I didn't know, so what did you expect??" All any seller would have to say is "I don't know" to unload all sorts of garbage on all sorts of unsuspecting buyers, and those buyers would have no recourse because they "accepted" that the seller didn't know...? The idea that a seller saying "I don't know" (aka, "as is") means the buyer forfeits his right to inspect is obviously not a valid one, nor does it create automatic acceptance on the part of the buyer of whatever may show up.

Says me. Says the hobby. Says CGC. Says almost every major dealer. Restoration is a deliberate attempt to alter the item from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is. The item is no longer original. Therefore, there is no need to "stipulate" to an "unrestored" ASM #137. It can be assumed to be original, unless otherwise stated. "I don't know" is not absolution, and does not mean the buyer forfeits the right to inspection AND rejection. The acceptance of the "terms of the sale" does not mean the buyer forfeits the right to inspection and rejection, nor does it create such a condition. The spelling out of terms by auction houses does not mean those terms don't already exist. Forgeries are specifically made to fool, which...again, by the terms in the UCC...fall under the "difficulty of discovery" clause in section 2-608. Restoration is not necessarily done to fool. Forgery always is. Restoration is not a crime. Forgery always is. Your analogy doesn't work. As for the hypothetical missing MVS...again, the UCC provides for "difficulty of discovery." As you, yourself, stated earlier: "Some resto...requires special skills, experience or tools." Spotting a missing MVS is always straightforward and obvious. Detecting restoration is not. Still...if a seller does not know if the MVS is missing, that doesn't absolve him or her of responsibility if it is. "I don't know" is not absolution, and does not remove the right of the buyer to inspection and rejection. "Conformity refers to the contract and not the item"...? No. You are incorrect. From the UCC, section 2-608: "The buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him if he has accepted it"..."non-conformity" here refers directly and specifically to the goods in question. The goods must conform to the contract. Coming back and saying "hey, that book you said might be restored" (actually, you're changing your argument, from "might or might not be" to simply "might be", which is different, and in this case, those precise words matter, but this should suffice to point that discrepancy out) "so I bought it from you anyway actually did come back as restored, so you sent me something different that (sic) what you described" is not only perfectly reasonable, it's prima facie non-conformity. The seller claimed he or she didn't know. The buyer...doing his due diligence...found out for sure. "Yes, it is, in fact, restored." "I don't know" does not absolve the seller from responsibility. The ONLY acceptable solution the seller had was to say "I don't know if the book is restored or not. If it turns out to be restored, I will offer you X discount" OR "I don't know if the book is restored or not. Because I don't know, I will sell it to you for X discount." If the buyer agreed, at that point, the buyer would assume the risk of restoration, in consideration of that discount. Otherwise...no, the seller doesn't get to say "I don't know, and you agreed to 'I don't know', so too bad." The buyer does not forfeit the right to inspection, nor is there an implicit or explicit "acceptance" of any good, based on the seller saying "I don't know." In fact, "I don't know" places even more emphasis on the need for the buyer to do an inspection.

Hey stranger!

Oak Park, Oak Lawn, Oakland...it's all very oak-ey, with notes of cherry and vanilla...

Not in dispute. The legal argument is "does not conform to the contract." Unreasonable according to whom? All of those presuppose that a buyer has forfeited his right to inspection prior to receipt. You don't forfeit your right to inspect by merely "agreeing to the sale." Those are "unreasonable rejections" according to you...but you will face a gargantuan task trying to convince the comic buying community of that. Regardless, as I explained before, a buyer has the right to inspection AND the right to rejection. A reasonable argument can be made that restoration...of any kind...means that the item is not, therefore, original, and substantively not, therefore, as described, and does not conform to the contract. And, according to the UCC, goods must conform perfectly...not just substantially, as in other contracts...to the specifications of the seller. "For contracts for the sale of goods, however, the UCC requires "perfect tender” by the seller. Tender means, in essence, the delivery of goods to the buyer, and perfect tender means delivering goods that precisely meet the terms of the contract. According to the UCC, if the goods as tendered “fail in any respect to conform to the contract,” the buyer has various options, including rejecting the goods." https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/sellers-performance-under-the-ucc.html "I don't know" isn't absolution. It does not matter whether the seller said so or not: if the inspection reveals non-conformity, the buyer has the right to reject. If you offer me an Amazing Spiderman #137, you are required to deliver an original Amazing Spiderman #137...not one that has been deliberately altered from its original condition by the addition or subtraction of material to or from the book to make it appear in better condition than it actually is. Your last statement... "I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally-designated (sic) as unrestored, but now that I have it I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance" is like a buyer saying to a home seller "I never said the sale was conditional on it being professionally designated as mold-free, but now that it has been I'm adding that to the terms of my acceptance." That is the point of inspection: to discover that which is not readily noticeable to the layman's eye. If a buyer cannot reject for non-conformity...and restoration certainly falls under non-conformity...then "right to inspect" has no meaning. Accepting that a seller "does not know" whether there is restoration or not does not constitute the buyer forfeiting the right to inspect for him or herself and reject for non-conformity. On the contrary, it means the buyer has even more cause to do his or her due diligence to determine the actual condition of the book. Again: the "discount price" argument holds absolutely no water, for various reasons. The only scenario in which the "discount price" argument would work is if that specific item was discounted itself from the initial asking price to account for the potential risk of the presence of restoration. Otherwise, no, it is not true that all "CGC" graded books sell for more than their raw counterparts, and prices are arrived at using factors totally unrelated to whether or not restoration may, or may not, exist. Not in dispute with regard to eBay transactions, which does not (generally) allow a buyer to list "changed my mind" as an enforceable reason to reject a sale.

As explained previously, the "discount price" argument doesn't hold water. "Right to inspect" means that the buyer also has the right to reject; otherwise, the right to inspect has no meaning. And the point of the inspection...totally irrespective of what the seller does or does not know...is to determine if the item is acceptable to the buyer.

Right..and I don't think those terms will hold up, regardless of who assents to them. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe someone can accept payment and then have performance be contingent on the participation of others. That's just "send me your money, and get nothing in return." Since it's described as a fee, rather than a donation, I don't *think" it will fly.

If 400 applications are received...at $25 each...I imagine he would need to refund the $10,000 he got in application fees, if he refuses to hold the contest. I don't think you can get away with keeping the money and not having the contest, regardless of his disclaimers.

Sure...provided the buyer's right to inspect...which is expressly described in the UCC...is maintained. The issue isn't whether someone can sell "as is", even online...they certainly can...but a buyer still has the right to inspect. A seller can't say "I'm selling this "as is", so I'm denying you the right to inspect it." Such a move would, I imagine, void almost any contract as, as I understand it, "unconscionable", as it would be an open invitation for fraud. That said, I can see a warranty regarding restoration reading something like "I am not responsible for any restoration that may or may not be present on this book", and, if CGC missed it...which, while excessively rare, isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility...then the seller would be off the hook at that point. Otherwise, once the restoration is discovered, regardless of by whom, within a reasonable amount of time, the buyer reserves the right to reject/revoke acceptance of the book. You can't force a sale with "as is." You can only limit liability after the fact, as I understand it.

That is insane. Just insane. Wow.

My granny could kick your granny's heiny.