Superman #4 and #6 Heritage sales

[buttock]

what nobody is focussing on here is the greed factor. Both sides are being impelled by their desire to own a book that is suddenly worth a lot more for a cheaper price. Buyer wants seller to agree to terms made long ago that he himself failed to adhere to. Seller feels he bent over backwards and now has to let it go too cheap?

 

its a tough one, but not legally IMO. However IMO seller should negotiate a somewhat higher price as he has his good name to defend. Halfway between old and perceived new value perhaps? If a third party hasnt bough it already.

 

Actually, what nobody is focusing on here is the fact that this is entirely rumor & gossip at this point. Neither of the two primaries has posted and all information is heresay & seems shoddy at best.

 

It's a conversation that shouldn't continue until some facts are present.

[VintageComics]

Reason.

 

[nearmint]

what nobody is focussing on here is the greed factor. Both sides are being impelled by their desire to own a book that is suddenly worth a lot more for a cheaper price. Buyer wants seller to agree to terms made long ago that he himself failed to adhere to. Seller feels he bent over backwards and now has to let it go too cheap?

 

its a tough one, but not legally IMO. However IMO seller should negotiate a somewhat higher price as he has his good name to defend. Halfway between old and perceived new value perhaps? If a third party hasnt bough it already.

 

Actually, what nobody is focusing on here is the fact that this is entirely rumor & gossip at this point. Neither of the two primaries has posted and all information is heresay & seems shoddy at best.

 

It's a conversation that shouldn't continue until some facts are present.

 

Neither of the primaries will post. The only point in contention in the thread is whether the buyer had fully paid. He had not. He had paid just under 15K, which the seller refunded.

[adamstrange]

what nobody is focussing on here is the greed factor. Both sides are being impelled by their desire to own a book that is suddenly worth a lot more for a cheaper price. Buyer wants seller to agree to terms made long ago that he himself failed to adhere to. Seller feels he bent over backwards and now has to let it go too cheap?

 

its a tough one, but not legally IMO. However IMO seller should negotiate a somewhat higher price as he has his good name to defend. Halfway between old and perceived new value perhaps? If a third party hasnt bough it already.

 

Actually, what nobody is focusing on here is the fact that this is entirely rumor & gossip at this point. Neither of the two primaries has posted and all information is heresay & seems shoddy at best.

 

It's a conversation that shouldn't continue until some facts are present.

 

We don't let the lack of facts get in the way of a good old fashioned internet melee.

 

I'm not sure we even want facts.

[comicartcom]

as a dealer I will say just a couple things:

 

when a dealer enters into a contract - verbal or written - that he will accept a price for an item, and that he will accept time payments - from that moment on, as long as the buyer adheres to any time schedule agreed and all payments have been made..... the dealer has a responsibility to sell the book to the buyer. There are no ifs, ands or buts to the issue. The buyer should get the book.

 

If the item is still being paid for, and the buyer has maintained his payment schedule, then the deal continues.

 

If there is a request to modify the agreement ("I can't send a check this week, but I can in 2 weeks") and the seller agrees to the modification, the contract remains in force and the buyer gets the book (as long as he continues his payments)

 

There is no grey area.

 

According to Steve's first post on the subject, the buyer has made all of his payments is awaiting delivery of the book.. Now the Heritage sale happens and the seller has second thoughts so AFTER he has been fully paid he decides to unilaterally change the contract to his own benefit, return the buyers money which he has been holding (or more probably used) for whatever period of time and announces that he now has decided to keep the book..

 

THE SELLER HAS BROKEN THE CONTRACT FOR WHICH HE CAN BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO THE BUYER.

 

In this case, the liability can be extrapolated from the sale of the issue at Heritage

 

There isn't a grey area here. The seller agreed to a contract. The buyer - according to Steve's post - has uplheld his end of the contract. Now the seller has a duty to uphold his end. Anything short of delivering the book is illegal in contract law.

 

Listen, when I list an item for sale and agree to a price under whatever circumstances, I am duty bound by that contarct and I cannot modify the terms unilaterally to suit myself. I cannot choose to speed up the payments schedule for instance. I can request a modification from the buyer, but if the buyer disagrees, I must uphold the terms that were already in place. If I need to be paid faster because my stock broker calls me for acheck because my stocks lost value and I call the buyer of my comic book to see if he can pay if off early, I would probably have to add a sweetener (pay me now and I'll discount 10% from the balance).

 

In this case, the seller apparently wants to keep the book due to a potential windfall of a price increase.. TOO SPOONING BAD. You agreed to a deal and you were ahppy when you priced the book at the beginning of the deal. In comics, the expectation of an increase in value is regarded very highly by all collectors and dealers (even though I think such a belief is a misguided sideshow to collecting), but just because you were blindsided by an unexpected development (the Heritage sales) doesn't mean you can void the transaction on your own.

 

You have a contract and unless your contract has an "option" for withdrawal or an option for an "increase due to market forces during the payment time frame".. well you just don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Whoever the seller is is wrong. He must by law deliver the book to the buyer.

[comicartcom]

okay.. I said a bunch of things..

[nearmint]

According to Steve's first post on the subject, the buyer has made all of his payments is awaiting delivery of the book.

 

While I agree that the seller had an obligation to sell the book, let's stay factual. Here's a small excerpt from the email send from the seller to the buyer:

 

"I can return the most recent check you gave me at the show and send you back the other 12K you have put toward the book. That would give you nearly15K..."

 

The purchase price was 29K. The buyer had paid "nearly 15K" towards that amount.

[comicartcom]

well, where's the entire email? I don't see it tin this thread anywhere (and don't be a wise-spoon. I stuck with the facts as I read them in this thread)

[tb]

 

We don't let the lack of facts get in the way of a good old fashioned internet melee.

 

I'm not sure we even want facts.

 

I have to agree. But an unsubstantiated rumor without facts should at least mention some numbers. Otherwise it's just a myth.

 

 

[nearmint]

well, where's the entire email? I don't see it tin this thread anywhere (and don't be a wise-spoon. I stuck with the facts as I read them in this thread)

 

Yikes. I in no way meant to be a wise-spoon Yes, you stuck to the facts of the first post on this subject. But bedrock corrected that first post, and I reiterated the correction later.

 

The entire email is not posted in the thread, and I'm not going to post it. It's not necessary, and I agree with Gator that the identities of the parties involved shouldn't be revealed unless they want to chime in themselves.

[G.A.tor]

as a dealer I will say just a couple things:

 

when a dealer enters into a contract - verbal or written - that he will accept a price for an item, and that he will accept time payments - from that moment on, as long as the buyer adheres to any time schedule agreed and all payments have been made..... the dealer has a responsibility to sell the book to the buyer. There are no ifs, ands or buts to the issue. The buyer should get the book.

 

If the item is still being paid for, and the buyer has maintained his payment schedule, then the deal continues.

 

If there is a request to modify the agreement ("I can't send a check this week, but I can in 2 weeks") and the seller agrees to the modification, the contract remains in force and the buyer gets the book (as long as he continues his payments)

 

There is no grey area.

 

According to Steve's first post on the subject, the buyer has made all of his payments is awaiting delivery of the book.. Now the Heritage sale happens and the seller has second thoughts so AFTER he has been fully paid he decides to unilaterally change the contract to his own benefit, return the buyers money which he has been holding (or more probably used) for whatever period of time and announces that he now has decided to keep the book..

 

THE SELLER HAS BROKEN THE CONTRACT FOR WHICH HE CAN BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES TO THE BUYER.

 

In this case, the liability can be extrapolated from the sale of the issue at Heritage

 

There isn't a grey area here. The seller agreed to a contract. The buyer - according to Steve's post - has uplheld his end of the contract. Now the seller has a duty to uphold his end. Anything short of delivering the book is illegal in contract law.

 

Listen, when I list an item for sale and agree to a price under whatever circumstances, I am duty bound by that contarct and I cannot modify the terms unilaterally to suit myself. I cannot choose to speed up the payments schedule for instance. I can request a modification from the buyer, but if the buyer disagrees, I must uphold the terms that were already in place. If I need to be paid faster because my stock broker calls me for acheck because my stocks lost value and I call the buyer of my comic book to see if he can pay if off early, I would probably have to add a sweetener (pay me now and I'll discount 10% from the balance).

 

In this case, the seller apparently wants to keep the book due to a potential windfall of a price increase.. TOO SPOONING BAD. You agreed to a deal and you were ahppy when you priced the book at the beginning of the deal. In comics, the expectation of an increase in value is regarded very highly by all collectors and dealers (even though I think such a belief is a misguided sideshow to collecting), but just because you were blindsided by an unexpected development (the Heritage sales) doesn't mean you can void the transaction on your own.

 

You have a contract and unless your contract has an "option" for withdrawal or an option for an "increase due to market forces during the payment time frame".. well you just don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Whoever the seller is is wrong. He must by law deliver the book to the buyer.

hey

unfortunately, you don't have your facts correct...

the buyer did not fully pay (Though he intended too) and the buyer paid after the agreed upon completion date (and still, not in full)... the seller is not "wrong" and not legally obligated to sell any longer, though, ethically, he should

[Aman619]

facts were wrong, but it was a well-spoken essay nonetheless! the key fact is that it was NOT paid in full yet. Id go so far as to say that if buyer attemped to Fedex the last payment AFTER the Heritage sales happened that timing lessens buyers case.

[nearmint]

That Heritage auction has certainly created some interesting dynamics in the hobby.

[metropoliscomics]

Yes, I mis-read the original email. $15k had been paid before the Heritage sale took place.

[comicartcom]

hey

unfortunately, you don't have your facts correct...

the buyer did not fully pay (Though he intended too) and the buyer paid after the agreed upon completion date (and still, not in full)... the seller is not "wrong" and not legally obligated to sell any longer, though, ethically, he should

 

well I have seen nothing to indicate my facts are wrong

 

If the sale was still going on and payments were being made as agreed, then the seller is still obligated to the transaction. If the seller has been paid "outside the window" and has deposited a check submitted outside the window - we call that "acceptance of terms" (I.E.: he agrees to keep accepting payments)

 

If he has received a payment outside the correct payment window and has not cashed the check, he is still on the hook to complete the sale pursuant to other factors. For instance, he cannot cancel the sale unilaterally.. yet! Depending on what state the buyer is in (yep, I believe it's the buyer's state) the seller must submit a notice to the buyer that he has X number of days to complete the sale or that the sale shall be cancelled and the monies returned. He still may not cancel the sale unilaterally.

 

Look, just because we're dealing in funny books here doesn't mean that the tenets of business or contract law do not apply.

 

When you pay a mortgage and miss 3 payments, the house does not automatically become the property of the bank. There is something called "a process" that begins with mailed warnings of default and ends months later in foreclosure.

 

 

[comicartcom]

well, where's the entire email? I don't see it tin this thread anywhere (and don't be a wise-spoon. I stuck with the facts as I read them in this thread)

 

Yikes. I in no way meant to be a wise-spoon Yes, you stuck to the facts of the first post on this subject. But bedrock corrected that first post, and I reiterated the correction later.

 

The entire email is not posted in the thread, and I'm not going to post it. It's not necessary, and I agree with Gator that the identities of the parties involved shouldn't be revealed unless they want to chime in themselves.

 

wise-spoon rescinded

 

 

[tonytiger]

But did the Heritage sale take place? It may not have.

[comicartcom]

But did the Heritage sale take place? It may not have.

 

as far as anything I have seen.. there is no reason to believe the sales did not take place and anyone who continues to claims some kind of fraud on Heritage's part (or the presumed buyers) is being libelous..

 

absent any information from reliable sources indicating otherwise, we must conclude that the sale has indeed taken place.

[G.A.tor]

hey

unfortunately, you don't have your facts correct...

the buyer did not fully pay (Though he intended too) and the buyer paid after the agreed upon completion date (and still, not in full)... the seller is not "wrong" and not legally obligated to sell any longer, though, ethically, he should

 

well I have seen nothing to indicate my facts are wrong

 

If the sale was still going on and payments were being made as agreed, then the seller is still obligated to the transaction. If the seller has been paid "outside the window" and has deposited a check submitted outside the window - we call that "acceptance of terms" (I.E.: he agrees to keep accepting payments)

 

If he has received a payment outside the correct payment window and has not cashed the check, he is still on the hook to complete the sale pursuant to other factors. For instance, he cannot cancel the sale unilaterally.. yet! Depending on what state the buyer is in (yep, I believe it's the buyer's state) the seller must submit a notice to the buyer that he has X number of days to complete the sale or that the sale shall be cancelled and the monies returned. He still may not cancel the sale unilaterally.

 

Look, just because we're dealing in funny books here doesn't mean that the tenets of business or contract law do not apply.

 

When you pay a mortgage and miss 3 payments, the house does not automatically become the property of the bank. There is something called "a process" that begins with mailed warnings of default and ends months later in foreclosure.

 

this is not directed at you, but to all that posted responses without knowing the facts or the parties involved......

 

I am not at liberty to discuss the transaction...quite honestly, it is no more my business than it is anyone else's on this board....

 

my only point is that no one really has any business discussing what the buyer and seller have to do, without first knowing what the buyer and seller agreed upon....

 

simple as that

[comicartcom]

Jeff.. That is a very funny post.. at least at this point in the thread...

 

;-)