PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[comix4fun]

But I can't look past "I don't think it's a stain".

When the question was raised in the FS thread, "could that be a stain?", other potential buyers have said they now thought a stain was possible, regardless of the sellers response.

So that puts the onus on the buyer to negotiate an out if that possibility arises.

 

Unfortunately I'm too tired to go through Speedy's locked thread and find out how many people wrote "new people don't understand how seriously we take the Takeit guy"

 

Value of the transaction or boardmember status shouldn't be a factor.

 

 

 

Two things that stick out to me:

 

1) The owner and seller is in the best possible position to give an opinion on whether something like this is a stain. He owns the books, held the book, took pictures, and offered his opinion. If he doesn't know he shouldn't give an opinion on something that could very well sway a buyer into agreeing to buy.

 

2) Once an owner makes a statement of opinion that could work in his favor to push a sale forward, he MUST stand behind that statement. Thus, if it turns out to be incorrect or false (regardless of intent), he must realize that his opinion had a hand in creating the agreement for sale and, now that the opinion has been proven false, one of the underpinnings of the original agreement has been destroyed.

 

Once self-serving opinions by the seller get thrown into the mix the onus lands squarely on the seller if those opinions as to a material defect are later proven false.

 

I don't know. Do you see a difference between:

 

1) I don't think it's a stain; and

 

2) I don't think it's a stain, but I can't be sure?

 

The PGM thread (linked in the sales OP) from a week prior to the sale was more specific.

 

In fairness, Dan, you did say "No moisture stains any where on it"

 

That is different from "I don't think it's a stain."

 

Going to back 30 pages... I DID NOT see the stain when I had the book in hand!

 

When the book went up for sale and I was questioned again, all I had were pics to look at, so I answered the best I could. I still don't think its "moisture" damage

 

Regardless of whether you saw the stain or not, the stain WAS present, and you said it was not there. You did not say "I think" you said "There is no moisture stains anywhere on it"

 

 

You were wrong on that fact, be it accidental, and you must stand by that statement and its consequences

 

In fairness, that was in the PGM, not the sales thread though.

 

But he linked the PGM thread to the sales thread and basically said "go check here for grade guesses"

 

If he said in a thread in which people guessed grades "There are no moisture stains anywhere on it" that should not change now that he is trying to sell the book.

 

Ah, I didn't realise he linked the PGM to the sales thread.

 

But it seems obvious to me that the second statement qualifies the first one, particularly since the second was in the sales thread in response to a question from a buyer. If he had said it as an opinion in the PGM and a fact in the sales thread, you wouldn't be saying that the first statement carried more weight, would you?

 

 

 

Well in the PGM he was stating it as a fact.

 

In the sales thread he was trying to explain away what looked like a stain on the pictures that he "thought it was an odd light". He wasn't sure what it was in the sales thread, but he was positive what it wasn't in the PGM.

 

Add the two together and he stated pretty categorically that it was something other than a stain. He just never said what it was other than a potential optical illusion.

[Balham's Finest]

But I can't look past "I don't think it's a stain".

When the question was raised in the FS thread, "could that be a stain?", other potential buyers have said they now thought a stain was possible, regardless of the sellers response.

So that puts the onus on the buyer to negotiate an out if that possibility arises.

 

Unfortunately I'm too tired to go through Speedy's locked thread and find out how many people wrote "new people don't understand how seriously we take the Takeit guy"

 

Value of the transaction or boardmember status shouldn't be a factor.

 

 

 

Two things that stick out to me:

 

1) The owner and seller is in the best possible position to give an opinion on whether something like this is a stain. He owns the books, held the book, took pictures, and offered his opinion. If he doesn't know he shouldn't give an opinion on something that could very well sway a buyer into agreeing to buy.

 

2) Once an owner makes a statement of opinion that could work in his favor to push a sale forward, he MUST stand behind that statement. Thus, if it turns out to be incorrect or false (regardless of intent), he must realize that his opinion had a hand in creating the agreement for sale and, now that the opinion has been proven false, one of the underpinnings of the original agreement has been destroyed.

 

Once self-serving opinions by the seller get thrown into the mix the onus lands squarely on the seller if those opinions as to a material defect are later proven false.

 

I don't know. Do you see a difference between:

 

1) I don't think it's a stain; and

 

2) I don't think it's a stain, but I can't be sure?

 

 

If Dan wasn't sure he should have never said anything. Once he said it he's got to own it all the way down the line if it turns out to be wrong. He'd want the same as a buyer, any of us would.

 

I see a similarity...neither should be forwarded in the sale of a 5 figure book if you aren't prepared as a seller to stand behind that statement when it turns out to be wrong.

 

It's called inducement and, regardless of qualifiers.

 

 

Bottom line for me, I would be 100% with Dan on this one without that opinion of it not being a stain having been made prior to agreement and sale. Once that happens he's got to back it up whether shown to be true or false.

 

I can't, in good conscience, side with Dan for taking a hard line stance to hold Bob, word for word, to what he said in making the deal and then (in the same breath) fault Bob for taking a hard line stance to hold Dan, word for word, to what he said in making the deal including the statements about the stain not being one.

 

 

 

 

I should have been more clear: I was thinking about this in the general context of a seller owning what they say, not in relation to this Dan/Bob matter.

 

In my view, if the facts were the same apart from the statement on the stain being as set out in 2), then a buyer shouldn't be able to withdraw in the event there's a stain.

 

I don't agree that you have to own every single statement of opinion all the way - it depends on exactly what you say. Otherwise you leave a seller in an impossible position - if they are asked a question and they are not absolutely 100% sure of the answer, they're supposed to just not even express an opinion?

 

What Dan said the second time was an opinion. He stated the first one as fact. That is why books should not be sold that are not in the hand of the seller so he can check them and verify the questions as fact.

 

Well, I don't agree that books should have to be in hand, for the reasons I wrote above. Also, there's no guarantee that you'd be able to answer a question definitively in every case, even if you did have the book. Sometimes, it's going to come down to an opinion.

 

 

yes, it should come down to some opinion. After all, books are graded and priced based on opinion, but if an item is misrepresented, be it accidental or minute, the buyer should have a way out of the transaction. Especially since Dan did not state an opinion in the PGM thread, he stated an opinion as a verified fact. It was not a verified fact, it was an opinion.

 

How can you misrepresent your own opinion?

 

If I sell a raw book and say "in my opinon, this would grade CGC 8.0", and someone buys it and it comes back a CGC 7.5, you're saying they should get a refund? Nonsense.

[Iceman399]

But I can't look past "I don't think it's a stain".

When the question was raised in the FS thread, "could that be a stain?", other potential buyers have said they now thought a stain was possible, regardless of the sellers response.

So that puts the onus on the buyer to negotiate an out if that possibility arises.

 

Unfortunately I'm too tired to go through Speedy's locked thread and find out how many people wrote "new people don't understand how seriously we take the Takeit guy"

 

Value of the transaction or boardmember status shouldn't be a factor.

 

 

 

Two things that stick out to me:

 

1) The owner and seller is in the best possible position to give an opinion on whether something like this is a stain. He owns the books, held the book, took pictures, and offered his opinion. If he doesn't know he shouldn't give an opinion on something that could very well sway a buyer into agreeing to buy.

 

2) Once an owner makes a statement of opinion that could work in his favor to push a sale forward, he MUST stand behind that statement. Thus, if it turns out to be incorrect or false (regardless of intent), he must realize that his opinion had a hand in creating the agreement for sale and, now that the opinion has been proven false, one of the underpinnings of the original agreement has been destroyed.

 

Once self-serving opinions by the seller get thrown into the mix the onus lands squarely on the seller if those opinions as to a material defect are later proven false.

 

I don't know. Do you see a difference between:

 

1) I don't think it's a stain; and

 

2) I don't think it's a stain, but I can't be sure?

 

 

If Dan wasn't sure he should have never said anything. Once he said it he's got to own it all the way down the line if it turns out to be wrong. He'd want the same as a buyer, any of us would.

 

I see a similarity...neither should be forwarded in the sale of a 5 figure book if you aren't prepared as a seller to stand behind that statement when it turns out to be wrong.

 

It's called inducement and, regardless of qualifiers.

 

 

Bottom line for me, I would be 100% with Dan on this one without that opinion of it not being a stain having been made prior to agreement and sale. Once that happens he's got to back it up whether shown to be true or false.

 

I can't, in good conscience, side with Dan for taking a hard line stance to hold Bob, word for word, to what he said in making the deal and then (in the same breath) fault Bob for taking a hard line stance to hold Dan, word for word, to what he said in making the deal including the statements about the stain not being one.

 

 

 

 

I should have been more clear: I was thinking about this in the general context of a seller owning what they say, not in relation to this Dan/Bob matter.

 

In my view, if the facts were the same apart from the statement on the stain being as set out in 2), then a buyer shouldn't be able to withdraw in the event there's a stain.

 

I don't agree that you have to own every single statement of opinion all the way - it depends on exactly what you say. Otherwise you leave a seller in an impossible position - if they are asked a question and they are not absolutely 100% sure of the answer, they're supposed to just not even express an opinion?

 

What Dan said the second time was an opinion. He stated the first one as fact. That is why books should not be sold that are not in the hand of the seller so he can check them and verify the questions as fact.

 

Well, I don't agree that books should have to be in hand, for the reasons I wrote above. Also, there's no guarantee that you'd be able to answer a question definitively in every case, even if you did have the book. Sometimes, it's going to come down to an opinion.

 

 

yes, it should come down to some opinion. After all, books are graded and priced based on opinion, but if an item is misrepresented, be it accidental or minute, the buyer should have a way out of the transaction. Especially since Dan did not state an opinion in the PGM thread, he stated an opinion as a verified fact. It was not a verified fact, it was an opinion.

 

How can you misrepresent your own opinion?

 

If I sell a raw book and say "in my opinon, this would grade CGC 8.0", and someone buys it and it comes back a CGC 7.5, you're saying they should get a refund? Nonsense.

 

and when it gets an CGC 8.5 you should give me more money.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

[comix4fun]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

[Jeffro.]

But I can't look past "I don't think it's a stain".

When the question was raised in the FS thread, "could that be a stain?", other potential buyers have said they now thought a stain was possible, regardless of the sellers response.

So that puts the onus on the buyer to negotiate an out if that possibility arises.

 

Unfortunately I'm too tired to go through Speedy's locked thread and find out how many people wrote "new people don't understand how seriously we take the Takeit guy"

 

Value of the transaction or boardmember status shouldn't be a factor.

 

 

 

Two things that stick out to me:

 

1) The owner and seller is in the best possible position to give an opinion on whether something like this is a stain. He owns the books, held the book, took pictures, and offered his opinion. If he doesn't know he shouldn't give an opinion on something that could very well sway a buyer into agreeing to buy.

 

2) Once an owner makes a statement of opinion that could work in his favor to push a sale forward, he MUST stand behind that statement. Thus, if it turns out to be incorrect or false (regardless of intent), he must realize that his opinion had a hand in creating the agreement for sale and, now that the opinion has been proven false, one of the underpinnings of the original agreement has been destroyed.

 

Once self-serving opinions by the seller get thrown into the mix the onus lands squarely on the seller if those opinions as to a material defect are later proven false.

 

I don't know. Do you see a difference between:

 

1) I don't think it's a stain; and

 

2) I don't think it's a stain, but I can't be sure?

 

The PGM thread (linked in the sales OP) from a week prior to the sale was more specific.

 

In fairness, Dan, you did say "No moisture stains any where on it"

 

That is different from "I don't think it's a stain."

 

Going to back 30 pages... I DID NOT see the stain when I had the book in hand!

 

When the book went up for sale and I was questioned again, all I had were pics to look at, so I answered the best I could. I still don't think its "moisture" damage

 

Regardless of whether you saw the stain or not, the stain WAS present, and you said it was not there. You did not say "I think" you said "There is no moisture stains anywhere on it"

 

 

You were wrong on that fact, be it accidental, and you must stand by that statement and its consequences

 

Yeah, this is it.

[Balham's Finest]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

Lesson for the future: if something like this is a dealbreaker for you as a buyer, say so. Perhaps Dan would have answered differently if it had been clear to him that the answer to the question determined whether Bob was prepared to go through with it or not.

 

[Kindle-migration]

Stupid question: Wouldn't SpiderDan have been able to see the stain before he submitted the book to CGC?

The stain is so light I didn't notice it.

 

OK, thanks.

 

This must be how one gets their post count to 2700 in 6 months

 

Funny thing your post count is 95% Sales Forum.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

A lot of people seem to by analyzing every single word to insinuate I mis-lead any potential buyers...

 

What about the word "moisture"?? I was asked if it was moisture, as I turns out CGC did NOT call it "moisture" damage. Hence my statement in the PGM thread is true

[Spider-Dan]

Stupid question: Wouldn't SpiderDan have been able to see the stain before he submitted the book to CGC?

The stain is so light I didn't notice it.

 

OK, thanks.

 

This must be how one gets their post count to 2700 in 6 months

 

Funny thing your post count is 95% Sales Forum.

 

Mine? Funny? Why

[comix4fun]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

Lesson for the future: if something like this is a dealbreaker for you as a buyer, say so. Perhaps Dan would have answered differently if it had been clear to him that the answer to the question determined whether Bob was prepared to go through with it or not.

 

 

Perhaps, yes.

 

We just don't want to get into a situation where the seller can make clear claims about books not being stained and buyers have no remedy when that statement turns out to be wrong.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to forced a buyer to say "stains are a deal breaker" to preserve his rights, when the seller clearly says without qualifier "No Stains".

 

I see a situation where Dan wanted to hold Bob to the exact letter of his statement, now Bob is holding Dan to the exact letter of his statements and I have to say "if it's good for the goose....".

[Kindle-migration]

Stupid question: Wouldn't SpiderDan have been able to see the stain before he submitted the book to CGC?

The stain is so light I didn't notice it.

 

OK, thanks.

 

This must be how one gets their post count to 2700 in 6 months

 

Funny thing your post count is 95% Sales Forum.

 

Mine? Funny? Why

 

It's obvious your main objective is only to sell comics on this forum. Nothing else matters.

 

[GIJOEISAWESOME-migration]

But I can't look past "I don't think it's a stain".

When the question was raised in the FS thread, "could that be a stain?", other potential buyers have said they now thought a stain was possible, regardless of the sellers response.

So that puts the onus on the buyer to negotiate an out if that possibility arises.

 

Unfortunately I'm too tired to go through Speedy's locked thread and find out how many people wrote "new people don't understand how seriously we take the Takeit guy"

 

Value of the transaction or boardmember status shouldn't be a factor.

 

 

 

Two things that stick out to me:

 

1) The owner and seller is in the best possible position to give an opinion on whether something like this is a stain. He owns the books, held the book, took pictures, and offered his opinion. If he doesn't know he shouldn't give an opinion on something that could very well sway a buyer into agreeing to buy.

 

2) Once an owner makes a statement of opinion that could work in his favor to push a sale forward, he MUST stand behind that statement. Thus, if it turns out to be incorrect or false (regardless of intent), he must realize that his opinion had a hand in creating the agreement for sale and, now that the opinion has been proven false, one of the underpinnings of the original agreement has been destroyed.

 

Once self-serving opinions by the seller get thrown into the mix the onus lands squarely on the seller if those opinions as to a material defect are later proven false.

 

I don't know. Do you see a difference between:

 

1) I don't think it's a stain; and

 

2) I don't think it's a stain, but I can't be sure?

 

The PGM thread (linked in the sales OP) from a week prior to the sale was more specific.

 

In fairness, Dan, you did say "No moisture stains any where on it"

 

That is different from "I don't think it's a stain."

 

Going to back 30 pages... I DID NOT see the stain when I had the book in hand!

 

When the book went up for sale and I was questioned again, all I had were pics to look at, so I answered the best I could. I still don't think its "moisture" damage

 

Regardless of whether you saw the stain or not, the stain WAS present, and you said it was not there. You did not say "I think" you said "There is no moisture stains anywhere on it"

 

 

You were wrong on that fact, be it accidental, and you must stand by that statement and its consequences

 

In fairness, that was in the PGM, not the sales thread though.

 

But he linked the PGM thread to the sales thread and basically said "go check here for grade guesses"

 

If he said in a thread in which people guessed grades "There are no moisture stains anywhere on it" that should not change now that he is trying to sell the book.

 

But I never said this...

 

 

I know, all my books are sucky

 

Now we are even

 

. Nice (thumbs u

[jaybuck43]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

This is the problem I have with letting Bob off the hook (unless Dan wants to let him off) Bob is a sophisticated buyer, he knows what he is doing. I would suggest that he has probably made more then 2 5 figure book deals. He had access to several pictures showing the book raw (including interior pictures) and Finecollector asked about the stain.

 

Now I focused on corporate and contracts law in Law School (Burn the Lawyer!) and restatement 209 is just screaming in the back of my head. For those of you that don't know it it deals with the statement of terms and what is/is not included in the deal. We assume that this is a final agreement on the terms because there is no mention of the stain by the buyer and no return policy question. So neither of those issues are applicable. The deal was 2 books (one of which is an FF1 the other known only to Buyer and Seller) and Cash (an unknown amount but known to B and S) in exchange for a CGC graded 8.0 JIM 83. That's it. I think talk of the stain and return policies has to end because there is no evidence that either existed in this case. Just my

[Spider-Dan]

Stupid question: Wouldn't SpiderDan have been able to see the stain before he submitted the book to CGC?

The stain is so light I didn't notice it.

 

OK, thanks.

 

This must be how one gets their post count to 2700 in 6 months

 

Funny thing your post count is 95% Sales Forum.

 

Mine? Funny? Why

 

It's obvious your main objective is only to sell comics on this forum. Nothing else matters.

 

Buying and Selling yes. Sorry I don't waste people's time with "I'd buy this if I didn't buy the same book last week" or "That's nicer than my....."

 

And for this discussion, that's totally irrelevant. That was a dig at GIJOE for a PM thread we had going

[Balham's Finest]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

Lesson for the future: if something like this is a dealbreaker for you as a buyer, say so. Perhaps Dan would have answered differently if it had been clear to him that the answer to the question determined whether Bob was prepared to go through with it or not.

 

 

Perhaps, yes.

 

We just don't want to get into a situation where the seller can make clear claims about books not being stained and buyers have no remedy when that statement turns out to be wrong.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to forced a buyer to say "stains are a deal breaker" to preserve his rights, when the seller clearly says without qualifier "No Stains".

 

I see a situation where Dan wanted to hold Bob to the exact letter of his statement, now Bob is holding Dan to the exact letter of his statements and I have to say "if it's good for the goose....".

 

I agree with this.

 

Whether or not the buyer is clear that it's a dealbreaker is more relevant in the borderline examples - like where a seller says "in my opinion this isn't a stain, but I can't be sure".

[comix4fun]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

A lot of people seem to by analyzing every single word to insinuate I mis-lead any potential buyers...

 

What about the word "moisture"?? I was asked if it was moisture, as I turns out CGC did NOT call it "moisture" damage. Hence my statement in the PGM thread is true

 

 

So it's other people that are analzing every single word.

 

You didn't try to mislead anyone. You were just flat wrong.

 

If you want to get into the definition of "is" you may be missing the point.

 

You want to hold Bob's feet to the fire over his words and statements but you want a pass on being dead wrong on whether that was a stain.

[comix4fun]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

 

Well you were pretty clear it wasn't a stain, maybe that's why no one asked about it after you made your statements.

 

Lesson for the future: if something like this is a dealbreaker for you as a buyer, say so. Perhaps Dan would have answered differently if it had been clear to him that the answer to the question determined whether Bob was prepared to go through with it or not.

 

 

Perhaps, yes.

 

We just don't want to get into a situation where the seller can make clear claims about books not being stained and buyers have no remedy when that statement turns out to be wrong.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to forced a buyer to say "stains are a deal breaker" to preserve his rights, when the seller clearly says without qualifier "No Stains".

 

I see a situation where Dan wanted to hold Bob to the exact letter of his statement, now Bob is holding Dan to the exact letter of his statements and I have to say "if it's good for the goose....".

 

I agree with this.

 

Whether or not the buyer is clear that it's a dealbreaker is more relevant in the borderline examples - like where a seller says "in my opinion this isn't a stain, but I can't be sure".

 

Exactly, ones a sales pitch and the other is a simple statement that could not sway a buyer into buying or not buying.

[Balham's Finest]

Exactly, ones a sales pitch and the other is a simple statement that could not sway a buyer into buying or not buying.

 

Lawyer high five?

[HarveySwick]

I'm going to ask a stupid question (yes, I know everything that comes out of my mouth is stupid and therefore I don't need the qualifier) but at any point before the notes, did Bob mention anything about the stain? We know it was brought up in the thread by Finecollector but I hadn't seen anything in the PMs shown that the stain or possible stain was of any concern to Bob BEFORE he got the notes.

 

Not that it matters in most peoples eyes, but the "stain" was NEVER brought up during any of our PM's Surprisingly hardly any questions were asked.

 

This is the problem I have with letting Bob off the hook (unless Dan wants to let him off) Bob is a sophisticated buyer, he knows what he is doing. I would suggest that he has probably made more then 2 5 figure book deals. He had access to several pictures showing the book raw (including interior pictures) and Finecollector asked about the stain.

 

Now I focused on corporate and contracts law in Law School (Burn the Lawyer!) and restatement 209 is just screaming in the back of my head. For those of you that don't know it it deals with the statement of terms and what is/is not included in the deal. We assume that this is a final agreement on the terms because there is no mention of the stain by the buyer and no return policy question. So neither of those issues are applicable. The deal was 2 books (one of which is an FF1 the other known only to Buyer and Seller) and Cash (an unknown amount but known to B and S) in exchange for a CGC graded 8.0 JIM 83. That's it. I think talk of the stain and return policies has to end because there is no evidence that either existed in this case. Just my

Jaybuck, I always value your input because you seem to be a level-headed guy who takes into account the evidence and arguments from both sides (you're a lawyer! ).

 

But in this instance, what if Bob relied on Dan's representations between the PGM thread and the sales thread that there were NO stains on the book and that caused him not to ask any further questions re: a possible stain? Would that change your opinion at all?

 

Can everyone agree that all other things being equal, a book WITH a stain is worth less, price wise or personal appeal wise, than one without a stain?