PROBATION DISCUSSIONS 21 21

[RockMyAmadeus]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

[FlyingDonut]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

 

Which is why:

 

1) No returns on CGC graded books.

2) The customer isn't always right.

[bababooey]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - however I pursue it, dealer says "no" - Would you feel that my denied $18 recovery is probation worthy?

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

Edited July 17, 2011 by bababooey

[mikenyc]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - would you feel that is probation worthy?

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

Any real attorneys care to comment. Some members feel that excessive viewing of Judge Joe Brown affords them the legal knowledge to speak in absolute terms about the outcome of a legal proceeding.

 

Leave it alone Bababooey, you're wasting your time. Like many a young men who think they can conquer a grizzled old whore, it's entertaining for about 3 minutes, you leave unfulfilled and spend the next month getting rid of the crabs.

[jpolz]

I don't understand the point of this debate. Once a person goes on the list the only one who can remove them is the accuser. If the accuser doesn't feel like he's been made whole then it doesn't matter if the rest of the board disagrees -- there's no process in the proposed rules for a person being removed from the list unless the person who had them added agrees to it.

 

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

The whole debate over 2d seems redundant to me, because removal is subject only to the satisfaction of the accuser.

[Speedy-D]

I don't understand the point of this debate. Once a person goes on the list the only one who can remove them is the accuser. If the accuser doesn't feel like he's been made whole then it doesn't matter if the rest of the board disagrees -- there's no process in the proposed rules for a person being removed from the list unless the person who had them added agrees to it.

 

4) Removal From The PL

a) If the accuser requests the accused be removed form the PL, the accused will be removed.

 

b) If the accused makes full restitution to the satisfaction of the accuser, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

c) If multiple accusers are involved, and full restitution is satisfactorily made to all accusers, the accused will be removed from the PL.

 

The whole debate over 2d seems redundant to me, because removal is subject only to the satisfaction of the accuser.

I suggested a while ago that there should be some period of time (3 months maybe?) after which one can get off the PL. It's not the HOS, seems reasonable one needn't be there forever.

 

You do the crime, you do the time...then you're free to do the crime again.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - would you feel that is probation worthy?

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

Any real attorneys care to comment. Some members feel that excessive viewing of Judge Joe Brown affords them the legal knowledge to speak in absolute terms about the outcome of a legal proceeding.

 

Leave it alone Bababooey, you're wasting your time. Like many a young men who think they can conquer a grizzled old whore, it's entertaining for about 3 minutes, you leave unfulfilled and spend the next month getting rid of the crabs.

 

You are one angry, angry chap.

 

One might say "mind your own damn business; Bababooey is an adult who is free to chat with whomever, and as long as, he wishes, who neither needs, nor asked for, your advice on the matter, and that you're just fomenting strife and hostility to further your angry agenda, cementing your reputation as a desparate approval seeking troublemaker with nothing valid to contribute to any conversation", but it won't be me who does.

 

And no one wants to hear about your experiences with STDs.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Obviously, I don't agree in the slightest. The CGC boards are just as much a part of reality as anything, and established civil case law can, and should, at least have a marginal bearing on what is done here.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - however I pursue it, dealer says "no" - Would you feel that my denied $18 recovery is probation worthy?

 

Of course not. It's not the seller's fault you held on to the book for two months. It's yours.

 

The issue...again...is one of timeliness. Of course you don't get to ask for the detriment of changing currency exchange rates, if you, the buyer, decide to keep the item for two months. You should have returned it in a timely manner.

 

It was the buyer's CHOICE to send the book back in opposition to USPS regulations, which resulted in the book being lost for quite some time. Had the buyer sent it back correctly and promptly, there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

14 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to return an item, without further consequence. Four months is not.

[mikenyc]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - would you feel that is probation worthy?

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

Any real attorneys care to comment. Some members feel that excessive viewing of Judge Joe Brown affords them the legal knowledge to speak in absolute terms about the outcome of a legal proceeding.

 

Leave it alone Bababooey, you're wasting your time. Like many a young men who think they can conquer a grizzled old whore, it's entertaining for about 3 minutes, you leave unfulfilled and spend the next month getting rid of the crabs.

 

You are one angry, angry chap.

 

One might say "mind your own damn business; Bababooey is an adult who is free to chat with whomever, and as long as, he wishes, who neither needs, nor asked for, your advice on the matter, and that you're just fomenting strife and hostility to further your angry agenda, cementing your reputation as a desparate approval seeking troublemaker with nothing valid to contribute to any conversation", but it won't be me who does.

 

And no one wants to hear about your experiences with STDs.

 

That hurt my feelings. A few nights of Quell and a fine tooth comb and all was right again.

 

Sorry for interrupting your lecture, continue. (thumbs u

 

 

 

P.s. Please like me.

[Jeffro.]

I'm confused... are we now allowing transactions that took place apart from the CGC Marketplace / PM system to get some one placed on the Probation List? Doesn't eBay have its own form of negative feedback? While I certainly agree that his actions were garbage to say the least (based on what you've shared), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with using the CGC Marketplace Probation List as a list for bad transactions for ALL venues.

 

Agreed. Not comfortable with it either.

 

d) A Transaction between board members is not confined to the CGC Message Boards. Any transaction between forum members, regardless of the venue, is eligible for inclusion in the PL.

 

If it doesn't take place on these boards, it is not a board dispute and therefore should not be listed as if it were a board tranacation problem.

 

I don't mind revisiting this recent addition to the current PL rules. Might as well get it all refined.

 

One suggestion would be to specify an off-board transaction qualifies if it was advertised or linked to anywhere on the boards, including the Comics Market - Sales Advertising - Ebay, Dealers, in the Comics Market - Want To Buy! section, in a sig line advertising a sale site, etc.

 

 

That seems reasonable.

 

 

[bababooey]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Obviously, I don't agree in the slightest. The CGC boards are just as much a part of reality as anything, and established civil case law can, and should, at least have a marginal bearing on what is done here.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - however I pursue it, dealer says "no" - Would you feel that my denied $18 recovery is probation worthy?

 

Of course not. It's not the seller's fault you held on to the book for two months. It's yours.

 

The issue...again...is one of timeliness. Of course you don't get to ask for the detriment of changing currency exchange rates, if you, the buyer, decide to keep the item for two months. You should have returned it in a timely manner.

 

It was the buyer's CHOICE to send the book back in opposition to USPS regulations, which resulted in the book being lost for quite some time. Had the buyer sent it back correctly and promptly, there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

14 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to return an item, without further consequence. Four months is not.

The bolded parts work against you in civil law & aren't relevant to any ongoing PL discussion, they apply only to a dead issue. Sorry POV -

Limitations on Damages

There are several limitations on awarding damages to make the non breaching party whole:

A party cannot recover for loss which he could have avoided or mitigated through his reasonable efforts. (Rockingham Cty. v. Luten Bridge Co. 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929); Rest.2d §350)

Damages are limited to those losses which were foreseeable, i.e., in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. (Hadley v. Baxendale. 9 Exch. 341(1854).) ; Rest.2d 351.) Special damages are recoverable when special circumstances exist which cause some unusual injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can only recover special damages if defendant knew or should have known of the special circumstances at the time the defendant entered into the contract.

In order to be recoverable, damages must be established with reasonable certainty. (Rest.2d §352; Cal.Civ.Code §3301.) In other words, damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot be recovered. (McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper (1989) 210 CA3d 100, 104.)

No damages will be awarded for the mental distress or emotional trauma that may be caused by a breach of contract. (Rest.2d §353.)

 

It appears that the only way the damages you seek would be upheld would be if you could prove deliberate malice, oppression or fraud - I think all you can really prove is disinterest on the part of the buyer - clearly he didn't knowingly delay the return of the book because he knew you would suffer a lower resale price. - if that were the case why would he buy it in the first place? There was only one party with knowledge of the future market.

 

 

[boomtown]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

 

Which is why:

 

1) No returns on CGC graded books.

2) The customer isn't always right.

 

Are you serious? CGC slabs can turn a 9.8 book into a 9.0 after a couple of trips through the post office. There are a ton of books sitting in slabs that don't resemble the original grade given. I'll never buy a book with that kind of return policy & more & more dealers have given up trying to pull that on customers.

[Green]

I recognize that your only focus is on the time it took for the book to get back into your hands. The statement you are choosing to focus on was this:

Without some time limitations - couldn't anyone who has had ANY book returned to them that was subsequently resold for less make a PL nomination seeking compensation from the original non-buyer? That is the logic you are employing here.

This statement was in relation to YOUR resale of the book for less. Why did you sell it in May 2009? The original sale took place in January 2009, that is something you and the seller both agreed to. Your resale in May establishes a second market price that you alone established with another buyer.

 

Could you have waited longer to minimize damages further? Did you choose the best venue, were your scans good, did it end on a Sunday night or Tuesday morning, BIN or auction, sold to friend, dealer or stranger?

 

When the original transaction has been reversed it is only YOUR reselling of the item that created the loss you seek to recover. In reality, you had the book and he had his money - same as the day before the sale.

 

A regular comic dealer would likely be frustrated with the delays as you were, but most would accept taking the book back into their inventory with no beefs about the rise and fall of the irrational aspects of the market.

 

 

Sorry, but all of these concerns were addressed in civil case law decades ago, and the law sides with me. The book was sold again in May of 2009 because that is when I got the book back. Civil case law does not require me to "wait, on the chance that I can mitigate damages further"...it DOES require me to mitigate my damages, which I did. The buyer, by not ensuring that I received the item back in a reasonable amount of time, CREATED these damages. So, no, it's not a "same as the day before the sale" situation.

 

And when you REALLY get down to brass tacks, eBay purchases are a contract. When you bid on and win an item, you accept the item at the purchase price, so long as it is not significantly not as described. Since this book was in precisely the same condition when I finally received it back from the buyer as it was the day CGC graded it, the contract was valid. He bought a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428, and he received a CGC graded 9.8 Batman #428.

 

If I really wanted to be a about it, I could have sued the buyer for the entire amount, and forced him to complete the transaction, AND paid shipping costs,. AND court costs, AND all other costs associated with this transaction, including interest if allowed by law....and I would have won. He won a CGC 9.8 graded comic book...he received a CGC 9.8 comic book. Whether or not he had an issue with CGC's grading has nothing to do with me. He got EXACTLY what the auction said he would get.

 

In fact, depending on the statute of limitations wherever Dekeuk lives, I may STILL be able to sue him in civil court for the entire amount, minus the mitigated price obtained upon subsequent resale. I could probably sue his card issuer as a co-defendant for ripping the money out of Paypal (and thus out of my account) without demanding proof that the item had been returned by the buyer.

Please keep the discussion relevant to the probation list.

 

Clearly you understand how to recover your losses in the real world. Your point supports my point that there is no point in adding that dynamic to the PL resolution criteria.

 

Obviously, I don't agree in the slightest. The CGC boards are just as much a part of reality as anything, and established civil case law can, and should, at least have a marginal bearing on what is done here.

 

Putting both parties back to "pre-sale" state is the best reasonable outcome you can hope to achieve here & that occurred - you would hurt your own support (if your nom was valid timewise) by seeking out compensation above & beyond what some here deem necessary.

 

Take Canadian to US currency exchange - if I bought a book for $400 dollars USD two months ago from a return-friendly dealer, at the time of the sale the currencies were roughly at par. Am I, as a Canadian, able to return this today and ask for $418.00 USD back? It's a much more visible "market" adjustment than the one you are arguing for. Clearly the correct answer is "USD in/USD out" and I would agree with that - however I pursue it, dealer says "no" - Would you feel that my denied $18 recovery is probation worthy?

 

Of course not. It's not the seller's fault you held on to the book for two months. It's yours.

 

The issue...again...is one of timeliness. Of course you don't get to ask for the detriment of changing currency exchange rates, if you, the buyer, decide to keep the item for two months. You should have returned it in a timely manner.

 

It was the buyer's CHOICE to send the book back in opposition to USPS regulations, which resulted in the book being lost for quite some time. Had the buyer sent it back correctly and promptly, there wouldn't have been an issue.

 

Completing original transaction should be the only relevant issue (as far as the probation list goes); if you choose to accept returns on CGC books within 14 days of receipt then you do so at your own risk.

 

14 days is a reasonable amount of time in which to return an item, without further consequence. Four months is not.

The bolded parts work against you in civil law & aren't relevant to any ongoing PL discussion, they apply only to a dead issue. Sorry POV -

Limitations on Damages

There are several limitations on awarding damages to make the non breaching party whole:

A party cannot recover for loss which he could have avoided or mitigated through his reasonable efforts. (Rockingham Cty. v. Luten Bridge Co. 35 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1929); Rest.2d §350)

Damages are limited to those losses which were foreseeable, i.e., in the contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. (Hadley v. Baxendale. 9 Exch. 341(1854).) ; Rest.2d 351.) Special damages are recoverable when special circumstances exist which cause some unusual injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff can only recover special damages if defendant knew or should have known of the special circumstances at the time the defendant entered into the contract.

In order to be recoverable, damages must be established with reasonable certainty. (Rest.2d §352; Cal.Civ.Code §3301.) In other words, damages which are speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot be recovered. (McDonald v. John P. Scripps Newspaper (1989) 210 CA3d 100, 104.)

No damages will be awarded for the mental distress or emotional trauma that may be caused by a breach of contract. (Rest.2d §353.)

 

It appears that the only way the damages you seek would be upheld would be if you could prove deliberate malice, oppression or fraud - I think all you can really prove is disinterest on the part of the buyer - clearly he didn't knowingly delay the return of the book because he knew you would suffer a lower resale price. - if that were the case why would he buy it in the first place? There was only one party with knowledge of the future market.

 

Cool. You proved RMAs point. The buyer 'refused' an opened parcel which was what caused the delay. Fraud was the source of the damages. Not that it matters, im sure youll continue.

[bababooey]

Cool. You proved RMAs point. The buyer 'refused' an opened parcel which was what caused the delay. Fraud was the source of the damages. Not that it matters, im sure youll continue.

 

[seanfingh]

 

At least as it relates to Ohio, if you agree to buy a widget from me at $100 (and we are not talking about a requirements or an outputs contract) you breach the agreement, and I I sell the widget to mitigate my damages for $50, you owe me the difference or $50. Incidental and consequential damages are on a case by case basis, and judges here hate to award attorney's fees under any circumstances. But the basic measure of damages is contract price less amount realized in mitigation.

[mikenyc]

An actual lawyer, sweet. Not just someone who plays one on TV. (thumbs u

 

Thanks Sean, who went to four years of undergrad, three years of law school, and who passed the bar giving him the right to speak as an attorney.

[RockMyAmadeus]

At least as it relates to Ohio, if you agree to buy a widget from me at $100 (and we are not talking about a requirements or an outputs contract) you breach the agreement, and I I sell the widget to mitigate my damages for $50, you owe me the difference or $50. Incidental and consequential damages are on a case by case basis, and judges here hate to award attorney's fees under any circumstances. But the basic measure of damages is contract price less amount realized in mitigation.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

An actual lawyer, sweet. Not just someone who plays one on TV. (thumbs u

 

Thanks Sean, who went to four years of undergrad, three years of law school, and who passed the bar giving him the right to speak as an attorney.

 

You know what's totally unbelievable...?

 

Abraham Lincoln learned law ALL ON HIS OWN.

 

No college. No law school.

 

He did it by reading these funny things called BOOKS.

 

He read voraciously, he read all the time, and that is how he learned what he learned.

 

It doesn't matter where information comes from, if it's correct. It is the learning that counts.

 

YOU might try reading a book or two. Might do wonders for your personality.

 

Oh, and I may not pass the California State Bar Exam at this point, but I'll go up against YOU on any test, any day of any week.

 

(thumbs u

 

(PS...since I went to four years of college, do I have 1/3 the right to speak as an attorney...? )

[Green]

An actual lawyer, sweet. Not just someone who plays one on TV. (thumbs u

 

Thanks Sean, who went to four years of undergrad, three years of law school, and who passed the bar giving him the right to speak as an attorney.

 

You know what's totally unbelievable...?

 

Abraham Lincoln learned law ALL ON HIS OWN.

 

No college. No law school.

 

He did it by reading these funny things called BOOKS.

 

He read voraciously, he read all the time, and that is how he learned what he learned.

 

It doesn't matter where information comes from, if it's correct. It is the learning that counts.

 

YOU might try reading a book or two. Might do wonders for your personality.

 

Oh, and I may not pass the California State Bar Exam at this point, but I'll go up against YOU on any test, any day of any week.

 

(thumbs u

 

(PS...since I went to four years of college, do I have 1/3 the right to speak as an attorney...? )

Would seeing who can pee the farthest be considered a test?

[RockMyAmadeus]

An actual lawyer, sweet. Not just someone who plays one on TV. (thumbs u

 

Thanks Sean, who went to four years of undergrad, three years of law school, and who passed the bar giving him the right to speak as an attorney.

 

You know what's totally unbelievable...?

 

Abraham Lincoln learned law ALL ON HIS OWN.

 

No college. No law school.

 

He did it by reading these funny things called BOOKS.

 

He read voraciously, he read all the time, and that is how he learned what he learned.

 

It doesn't matter where information comes from, if it's correct. It is the learning that counts.

 

YOU might try reading a book or two. Might do wonders for your personality.

 

Oh, and I may not pass the California State Bar Exam at this point, but I'll go up against YOU on any test, any day of any week.

 

(thumbs u

 

(PS...since I went to four years of college, do I have 1/3 the right to speak as an attorney...? )

Would seeing who can pee the farthest be considered a test?

 

Oh please.

 

This is yappy dog trying to prove his own against big dog.

 

Classic.