PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[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

 

 

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.

 

I now know I am wrong about it being a stain. I've not denied that during any of these discussions.

 

At the time of sale I gave my opinion to the best of my knowledge

[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.

 

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?

 

I disagree with that. GPA doesn't break down 8.0 with stain, 8.0 with marvel chipping. Any we as the comic community have made GPA the site we all rely on for values

[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?

 

 

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.

 

But if I say "there is no moisture damage anywhere." That is not opinion, that is fact

[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.

 

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

 

 

You're thinking of a single written document forming the entirety of an agreement between two parties. This isn't as neat as that. The Parol Evidence rule brings in all the emails, PM, and statements by the parties as to what is including in the items bargained for, and amounts to be exchanged.

 

To that end, any statements by the seller that are material to the item being bargained for that turn out to be false are considered "material inducement". Being that there isn't a single document creating a contract here all those statements regarding condition, staining, damage, etc. by the owner all become part of the agreement.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

 

But if I say "there is no moisture damage anywhere." That is not opinion, that is fact

 

I believe that fact to still be true. It is not moisture damage according to CGC

[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?

 

I disagree with that. GPA doesn't break down 8.0 with stain, 8.0 with marvel chipping. Any we as the comic community have made GPA the site we all rely on for values

GPA is just recorded sales... not a price guide?

 

Are you saying people would NOT pay more for a book without a stain than for one with a stain?

[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?

 

 

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.

 

But if I say "there is no moisture damage anywhere." That is not opinion, that is fact

 

Even CGC is an opinion. The grade of a book is based on opinion. Whether or not that book has a stain is fact. SpiderDan said something in the PGM forum like he had verified it, when in fact he had not.

[comix4fun]

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?

 

 

[bababooey]

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?

It's an 8.0 CGC graded book & the stain was found by CGC and factored into the grade.

He could sell it to someone less "stain sensitive" (it's for sale now) & maybe now he could say "Hey it's an 8.0 but it looks like an 8.5/9.0 but was downgraded for a minor stain that is barely visible"

 

But....if he did that the "seller disclosure illiterati" would say it was misleading.

 

 

I saw the PGM & the sales thread questions - I say that Dan is more right than wrong in this transaction. Whatever preferences the buyer had should have led him to condition his TAKEIT since questions were raised a couple times..I believe Dan when he says he didn't see the stain.

 

[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?

 

 

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.

 

But if I say "there is no moisture damage anywhere." That is not opinion, that is fact

 

I believe that fact to still be true. It is not moisture damage according to CGC

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.

 

But if I say "there is no moisture damage anywhere." That is not opinion, that is fact

 

I believe that fact to still be true. It is not moisture damage according to CGC

 

Now you are going by the letter of the law and not the spirit. You led the buyer to believe that that book had NO moisture damage. When in fact, it had some, be it minimal. This was misrepresentation of the book. I believe at this point, you and bob should just walk away unless you are resolving the issue amongst yourselves.

[Dr. Balls]

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.

 

As much as I don't want to use a car comparison - I think it's accurate. If I see a valuable car I want to purchase online, with plenty of photos and lengthy description - I will order a vehicle history report. Regardless of how detailed the seller's description is, problems that are disclosed from the history report of things I can't see (like major body/frame repairs, lack of maintenance, etc) - could affect the value or resale after I purchase it.

 

Grader's notes seemed to have illuminated some problems SD may not have known about. But they are there, and the staining plays a part in the grade and would likely deter the resale value down the road. I don't believe anyone is being dishonest in this situation at all.

 

I don't disagree with Bob's position - just as I would not intend to follow through on a sale of a car that looked great, ran great and was extensively described - only to find out from a third party there were severe problems that would affect it's value in comparison to other vehicles in the same condition.

[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.

 

I now know I am wrong about it being a stain. I've not denied that during any of these discussions.

 

At the time of sale I gave my opinion to the best of my knowledge

 

 

I agree. I have no doubt that everything you said was true and correct to the best of your knowledge at the time you said it. I don't, for a second, think you tried to do anything dishonest.

 

It's just that your being incorrect in this situation isn't something Bob should bear the burden of. That's all.

[Jeffro.]

 

I disagree with that. GPA doesn't break down 8.0 with stain, 8.0 with marvel chipping. Any we as the comic community have made GPA the site we all rely on for values

 

GPA is not the be-all and end-all of pricing. It's merely one of many possible resources. This comic community knows that. It's been said many, many times.

[Iceman399]

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.

 

As much as I don't want to use a car comparison - I think it's accurate. If I see a valuable car I want to purchase online, with plenty of photos and lengthy description - I will order a vehicle history report. Regardless of how detailed the seller's description is, problems that are disclosed from the history report of things I can't see (like major body/frame repairs, lack of maintenance, etc) - could affect the value or resale after I purchase it.

 

Grader's notes seemed to have illuminated some problems SD may not have known about. But they are there, and the staining plays a part in the grade and would likely deter the resale value down the road. I don't believe anyone is being dishonest in this situation at all.

 

I don't disagree with Bob's position - just as I would not intend to follow through on a sale of a car that looked great, ran great and was extensively described - only to find out from a third party there were severe problems that would affect it's value in comparison to other vehicles in the same condition.

 

I agree with what you said up till the end. You have already seen the photos, and the description call up the seller and say I will take it sending money tomorrow and provide all of your details. During a restless sleep you think I should check the car history, at this point you discover something that the REPUTABLE Car dealership missed or was unaware of and now want out.

[Jeffro.]

..I believe Dan when he says he didn't see the stain.

 

 

I don't think anyone is saying he lied about it. The bugaboo is that after the fact, it was confirmed as a stain.

[GIJOEISAWESOME-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.

 

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

 

And as hard as I have been hitting you, I deserved it (thumbs u

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

I now know I am wrong about it being a stain. I've not denied that during any of these discussions.

 

At the time of sale I gave my opinion to the best of my knowledge

 

 

I agree. I have no doubt that everything you said was true and correct to the best of your knowledge at the time you said it. I don't, for a second, think you tried to do anything dishonest.

 

It's just that your being incorrect in this situation isn't something Bob should bear the burden of. That's all.

 

Which is why, imo, both parties should chalk this up to lessons learned and walk away.

[GIJOEISAWESOME-migration]

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.

 

I now know I am wrong about it being a stain. I've not denied that during any of these discussions.

 

At the time of sale I gave my opinion to the best of my knowledge

 

 

I agree. I have no doubt that everything you said was true and correct to the best of your knowledge at the time you said it. I don't, for a second, think you tried to do anything dishonest.

 

It's just that your being incorrect in this situation isn't something Bob should bear the burden of. That's all.

 

Which is why, imo, both parties should chalk this up to lessons learned and walk away.

 

Agreed

[revat]

I'm tired of reading and gave up a few pages ago, but maybe people who are working out 5 figure deals should be a little more clear about the terms of their deal, especially on returns?

 

 

[GIJOEISAWESOME-migration]

I'm tired of reading and gave up a few pages ago, but maybe people who are working out 5 figure deals should be a little more clear about the terms of their deal, especially on returns?

 

 

Heck yah!