<< <i>One again, I have recommended this to everybody. Go out and educate the public by joining a Coin Club or going to Coin Shows and putting on Educational Seminars. Websites and written words might not be slanderous, but it sets you up to waste money, time and drain your energy from frivilious lawsuits. >>
more intelligent words are seldom posted on this forum. joining a coin club & educating your peer collectors is also a FAR more powerful ally of the coin collector than any coin posse (sorry to bring that up again).
<< <i>Kindly explain how the auction meets the elements of fraud. >>
I know I'm wasting my time since it's obvious there is only one reason you're here, but what the hell.
<< <i>1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is false or is ignorant of its truth >>
The seller claims the coin has an asset value of $150,000. Beyond the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been any 1964 proof Kennedy worth even a fraction of that, the claim is contrary to his own stated valuation methodology. Using that stated methodology, the "alleged" value would be $19205. Again, READ THE AUCTION.
<< <i>2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated >>
Self evident. Duh.
<< <i>3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >>
Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680.
<< <i>4) the peron's (buyer's) rightful or justified reliance >>
Of course the buyer is relying on the false valuation information provided. He bought the coin.
<< <i>5) proximate injury to the person. >>
His injury is that he will never be able to sell it for anywhere near what he just paid. Again, duh.
It is beyond me how ANYBODY can step up to defend this kind of activity - unless, of course, they have a hidden agenda.
<< <i>What injury was suffered by the winning bidder? >>
If he were to sell that coin to any dealer he would soon find out! I would like too see if one dealer that would even give him 10% of what he has in to that coin.
<< 1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is false or is ignorant of its truth >>
The seller claims the coin has an asset value of $150,000. Beyond the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been any 1964 proof Kennedy worth even a fraction of that, the claim is contrary to his own stated valuation methodology. Using that stated methodology, the "alleged" value would be $19205. Again, READ THE AUCTION.
This is not a false representation if the seller does not know it to be true.
<< 2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated >>
Self evident. Duh.
No...this is not self evident. Please explain.
<< 3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >>
"Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680."
This is conjecture - based completely on inconclusive evidence.
<< 4) the peron's (buyer's) rightful or justified reliance >>
"Of course the buyer is relying on the false valuation information provided. He bought the coin."
Please explain your proof of this. You are not aserting any material evidence.
<< 5) proximate injury to the person. >>
"His injury is that he will never be able to sell it for anywhere near what he just paid. Again, duh."
Again...please tell me how the buyer was injured. There is not injury here. The buyer paid what he thought the coin was worth.
I'm sorry, but your arguements do not meet the test. Plain and simple.
You are arguing in circles, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you. You're wrong, you're here for your own agenda or the agenda of others, and everybody at this forum knows it.
1) The seller is a full-time dealer. It's true. It's like pretending a golfer doesn't know where the course is or how many holes are on it.
The rest of your arguments are too silly really. Prove the buyer didn't know? He'll know when he re-sells. No experienced buyer would pay $680 for such a coin, or deal with PCI gold label slabs on eBay.
No...I am not arguing in circles. You cannot defend your position that the seller is committing fraud.
Russ is correct. Anything he says you say "Prove it". Russ is a recognized and respected Kennedy Half-Dollar expert, and knows eBay and the sellers there. You don't or want to play games.
Second time, what in the world do you know about coins ?
The seller alleges that PCGS would assign a value of $150,000 based upon it being graded Pf70 Deep Cameo. Problem is, PCGS would never assign that value ON THIS COIN based on PCI's grading standards.
If I took my 10 year old's fingerpainting to "Bob's Art Gallery and Storm Door Company" and HE certified it as an Andrew Wyeth original worth $1 million, can I say it has an auction value of $1 million based upon Bob's standards? If I did, THAT would be a fraud.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I have been collecting for over 20 years, since I was 6 years old. I do know the hobby.
It does not matter that Russ is an expert on anything. The fact is, fraud cannot be proven in this auction.
The coin is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Obviously, it was worth over $600 to the winning bidder. So what if he cannot sell it for what he paid for it? THIS IS NOT AN INJURY.
There is no reason to get angry at me just because I'm on the opposite side of your arguement. I'm only saying that this auction is not fraudulent. It does not meet all of the elements of the tort claim for fraud, and no one can prove that it does because all of your arguements are speculative.
You're wrong, you're here for your own agenda or the agenda of others, and everybody at this forum knows it.
Russ (and everyone): aren't we all here for our own agenda or purpose? It's okay (and healthy) to have opposing opinions. How boring would this forum be if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time.
Cameron, why would you ban someone for stating their opinion in a calm and professional manner?
Again, it's okay to disagree, but why get angry at someone because they don't share your opinion?
I found 4 references to CU, PCGS, and their price guide in the auction. Seller conveniently forgets to mention it was slabbed by PCI. If you didn't read the upside down label, you might not know.
Maybe there aren't 100's of these out there. Maybe this one just gets passed from one unsuspecting buyer to another.
Joe
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I have been collecting for over 20 years, since I was 6 years old. I do know the hobby. . 26 and a practicing attorney. He must be, what we called in the Army, a fast tracker! . I like this guy! Everybody disagrees with him! Keep 'um coming buddy! We haven't had this much fun since the guy lost his 1804 silver dollar when it fell out of his shirt pocket!
Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 3-5, 2025 at the Eisenhower Hotel Ballroom, Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
MichaelDixon - You might be what we refer to in the legal profession as a defendant. (I'm joking) . I need to hire you as my attorney. What you lack in wit, must be made up in wisdom!
Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 3-5, 2025 at the Eisenhower Hotel Ballroom, Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
Ok, you've been collecting for 20 years. Ever slabbed with PCI? I never have, but I've heard that sellers request their own grades and receive them or the graders are forced to move on.
So...we have a seller who's a full-time dealer requesting his own grades, then turning around and claiming the coin is worth $150,000 on eBay. And this isn't fraud?
Chris L's post confirms why Crapmover's auction would make an excellent fraud case. His ridiculous response to Russ's points would be laughed at by any judge or jury. I'll address only a couple to expose their absurdity -- it's not worth your or my time (and I tire of these lawyer posts).
1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is false or is ignorant of its truth
According to Chris L, Crapmover's claim the Kennedy has an auction value of $150,000 is not a material representation "if the seller does not know it to be true." First, note Chris L's response conflicts with, and conveniently ignores, his own recitation of the elements of a fraud claim, i.e. "ignorant of its truth."
Second, the auction text states, "auction value $150,000." That is an outrageous lie. How would you prove Crapmovers knows it is false or is ignorant of its falsity? A piece of cake for a first-year lawyer. Introduce the thousands of Crapmover's auctions where he makes strikingly similar claims in auction after auction after auction about this very Kennedy series and all manner of other coins -- only to have them hammer on Ebay for a few hundred bucks. Strong indicia indeed Crapmovers knows his coins are not worth anywhere near Crapmover's stated, express auction value.
In a deposition, ask Crapmovers if he can recall or otherwise conjure any auction where a Kennedy hammered for $150K -- the squirming in the deponent's chair would be a moment to cherish. "So you're not aware of any 1964 Kennedy auctioning for $150,000? Where did you come up with the figure? I see, you made it up."
Question to Chris L: enlighten us; where did this stated "auction value" of $150,000 for a Kennedy come from? Can you support it with any independent auction data?
2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated
Chris L claims it is not "self evident" the representations on the auction page were intended to be relied on. In fact, this puported U of C lawyer needs an explanation as to why this is so. This is so idiotic it merits a hostile response. (I can only hope someone with your skills, such as they are, will be on the opposite side of one of my cases.) Crapmovers created an auction page with these misrepresentations, and Crapmovers paid money for said auction page to be listed on the world's largest electronic auction house for the purpose of auctioning the Kennedy -- the "reasonable contemplation."
What's more, let's look at what Crapmovers himselfsays about his auction description:
Everything you need to know about the coins we offer in auction is provided in great detail in our auction verbiage. . . . We always work very hard to provide you with all of the information you will need about the coins to make an informed purchase.
So here it is, in the seller's own hand, "everything" the bidder needs to know is contained on the auction page -- and the seller goes so far as to tell prospective bidders he's working "hard" to provide said information so you can make an "informed purchase."
Yet Chris L, this University of Chicago lawyer, cannot understand the seller "intended" these "representations" be relied on -- even thought the seller says almost exactly that.
Chris L, if you are a lawyer, I am embarrassed to call myself one.
Coinmovers is just the latest snake oil salesman looking for unsuspecting newbies to coin collecting. Last week it was the guy selling 1854 $20 Proof gold coins. HIS value was $62,000 for a real one. Only problem here is that the coin being auctioned was a $19.95 gold CLAD TV copy "minted" last week. Buyer realized he'd been duped and the seller refunded the money. An honest snake oil salesman.
Joe
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
My point is, is that even if the first four elements of fraud are met, it would be impossible to prove injury.
Your analysis fails to address this point.
How was the buyer injured? It does not matter that he over paid for the coin. I fail to see how he sustained an injury. Yes, he will probably never be able to sell the coin for what he/she paid for it. This is not an injury.
As disgusting as I think "Crap Movers" auctions are, I have to agree with ChrisL - this is a case of caveat emptor.
I don't see a problem with a person stating the value of one of their items in an auction - I totally ignore it. The value will be decided at the end of the auction, not by the seller. The fact that he may have suckered people in with an obvious falsehood is disgusting, but not illegal.
Suppose I park my car in a parking garage downtown and there's a sign that says "We're not responsible if your car is destroyed". I know that sign's a meaningless lie, they know that sign's a meaningless lie, but if someone's car is stolen 95% of the time that unknowing person is going to assume that the sign is the law when it's not. Can you sue the garage for making a false claim?
<< <i>The fact that he may have suckered people in with an obvious falsehood is disgusting, but not illegal. >>
Actually, it is illegal. If I sell you a worthless piece of swamp land by claiming that it has a specific value far in excess of any accepted real estate valuation principle, it's fraud. The only difference here is that it's a coin, rather than real estate.
My point is, is that even if the first four elements of fraud are met, it would be impossible to prove injury.
No Chris, that is not your point. Ten minutes ago, a reasoned response was given to each of your fraud "elements." Your omnibus response: I'm sorry, but your arguements do not meet the test. Plain and simple.
Well it's not so "plain and simple" for you now that the absurdity of your arguments has been exposed. In the span of a page of text you've flip-flopped from zero to possibly four of five elements being met -- and in the process a serious loss of credibility.
Comments
<< <i>One again, I have recommended this to everybody. Go out and educate the public by joining a Coin Club or going to Coin Shows and putting on Educational Seminars. Websites and written words might not be slanderous, but it sets you up to waste money, time and drain your energy from frivilious lawsuits. >>
more intelligent words are seldom posted on this forum. joining a coin club & educating your peer collectors is also a FAR more powerful ally of the coin collector than any coin posse (sorry to bring that up again).
K S
of the coin industry. Lawsuites are costly, time consuming and often not as effective as
this educational Forum.
Camelot
In order to make the case for fraud each and every element would need to be proved.
What injury was suffered by the winning bidder?
it on the market place.
Camelot
Yes, it's fraud. It's just not prosecuted but should be.
Free Trial
<< <i>Kindly explain how the auction meets the elements of fraud. >>
I know I'm wasting my time since it's obvious there is only one reason you're here, but what the hell.
<< <i>1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is false or is ignorant of its truth >>
The seller claims the coin has an asset value of $150,000. Beyond the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been any 1964 proof Kennedy worth even a fraction of that, the claim is contrary to his own stated valuation methodology. Using that stated methodology, the "alleged" value would be $19205. Again, READ THE AUCTION.
<< <i>2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated >>
Self evident. Duh.
<< <i>3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >>
Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680.
<< <i>4) the peron's (buyer's) rightful or justified reliance >>
Of course the buyer is relying on the false valuation information provided. He bought the coin.
<< <i>5) proximate injury to the person. >>
His injury is that he will never be able to sell it for anywhere near what he just paid. Again, duh.
It is beyond me how ANYBODY can step up to defend this kind of activity - unless, of course, they have a hidden agenda.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>What injury was suffered by the winning bidder? >>
If he were to sell that coin to any dealer he would soon find out! I would like too see if one dealer that would even give him 10% of what he has in to that coin.
Don
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
The seller claims the coin has an asset value of $150,000. Beyond the fact that there is not now, nor has there ever been any 1964 proof Kennedy worth even a fraction of that, the claim is contrary to his own stated valuation methodology. Using that stated methodology, the "alleged" value would be $19205. Again, READ THE AUCTION.
This is not a false representation if the seller does not know it to be true.
<< 2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated >>
Self evident. Duh.
No...this is not self evident. Please explain.
<< 3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >>
"Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680."
This is conjecture - based completely on inconclusive evidence.
<< 4) the peron's (buyer's) rightful or justified reliance >>
"Of course the buyer is relying on the false valuation information provided. He bought the coin."
Please explain your proof of this. You are not aserting any material evidence.
<< 5) proximate injury to the person. >>
"His injury is that he will never be able to sell it for anywhere near what he just paid. Again, duh."
Again...please tell me how the buyer was injured. There is not injury here. The buyer paid what he thought the coin was worth.
I'm sorry, but your arguements do not meet the test. Plain and simple.
B.A. - English Purdue University
J.D. - University of Chicago School of Law
You are arguing in circles, and I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you. You're wrong, you're here for your own agenda or the agenda of others, and everybody at this forum knows it.
Russ, NCNE
The rest of your arguments are too silly really. Prove the buyer didn't know? He'll know when he re-sells. No experienced buyer would
pay $680 for such a coin, or deal with PCI gold label slabs on eBay.
ChrisL: Prove you know squat about coins.
Free Trial
Russ is correct. Anything he says you say "Prove it". Russ is a recognized and respected Kennedy Half-Dollar expert, and knows eBay and the sellers there. You don't or want to play games.
Second time, what in the world do you know about coins ?
Free Trial
If I took my 10 year old's fingerpainting to "Bob's Art Gallery and Storm Door Company" and HE certified it as an Andrew Wyeth original worth $1 million, can I say it has an auction value of $1 million based upon Bob's standards? If I did, THAT would be a fraud.
I have been collecting for over 20 years, since I was 6 years old. I do know the hobby.
It does not matter that Russ is an expert on anything. The fact is, fraud cannot be proven in this auction.
The coin is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Obviously, it was worth over $600 to the winning bidder. So what if he cannot sell it for what he paid for it? THIS IS NOT AN INJURY.
There is no reason to get angry at me just because I'm on the opposite side of your arguement. I'm only saying that this auction is not fraudulent. It does not meet all of the elements of the tort claim for fraud, and no one can prove that it does because all of your arguements are speculative.
<< <i>Uh...yes I am an attorney.
B.A. - English Purdue University
J.D. - University of Chicago School of Law >>
As if that proves anything without a name and bar number.
Russ (and everyone): aren't we all here for our own agenda or purpose? It's okay (and healthy) to have opposing opinions. How boring would this forum be if everyone agreed on everything 100% of the time.
Cameron, why would you ban someone for stating their opinion in a calm and professional manner?
Again, it's okay to disagree, but why get angry at someone because they don't share your opinion?
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
How come nobody ever bids $680 on my NGC 70's?
I think I'll have to send over some average proof sets to PCI for those $680 DCAM 70's
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Maybe there aren't 100's of these out there. Maybe this one just gets passed from one unsuspecting buyer to another.
Joe
Every observation of a reasonable and prudentman with experience in a particular field
is countered with "you are incorrect, prove your statement. The proof of a statement is backed by
an indeviduals expertise, experience and activity in the buying and selling of coins and of textbook
explinations of the grading and classification of coins, particularly the Kennedy Half dollars. Records of
auction sales are redily available, as are numerous pricing guidelines. Russ is such an expert and his
qualifications on this subject matter would be accepted in any court of law. One can twist words and
sentences and question intent of the seller . However, when a person takes it upon himself to sell
an item and has numerous sales of items to the public, he ,if ignorant, may cleverly state selling item as
graded for third party with a minimum bid. That would not be misleading, as he has stated the facts.
The item has been TPG and any person is entitled to place any minimum bid he may wish. However,
when one starts stating value of an object, their is the reasonable presumption that such statement
has some basis in fact. Otherwise is would be stated as my opinion only. Since no such coin, untill now,
has been so graded there are no specific records, but other similar type coins with a population of (l) are known
and prices have been established that are known to sellers of such coins. When a seller makes a statement as a fact,
then there is a assumed responsibility for that fact or facts and any resulting consequences resulting from acting
on that fact or facts. In this case, is is perhaps more pertanent that a person arguing the matter be a trained
numismatist then a trained attorney, in order to see the equity and common sense justice of the matter.
Camelot
.
26 and a practicing attorney. He must be, what we called in the Army, a fast tracker!
.
I like this guy! Everybody disagrees with him! Keep 'um coming buddy! We haven't had this much fun since the guy lost his 1804 silver dollar when it fell out of his shirt pocket!
B.A. - English, Purdue University, 1996
J.D. - University of Chicago, 2000
MichaelDixon - You might be what we refer to in the legal profession as a defendant. (I'm joking)
We are not defendents, we are more then likely demented. However,
Chris , welcome aboard the good ship Lollipop. Intelligent arguments are always welcome.
We are really not as bad as we sound............................................sometimes were even worse
if we forget to take our medications.
Camelot
.
I need to hire you as my attorney. What you lack in wit, must be made up in wisdom!
I practice intellectual property law. I doubt that you would ever have a case for me to handle.
Camelot
Camelot
Camelot
So...we have a seller who's a full-time dealer requesting his own grades, then turning around and claiming the coin is worth $150,000 on eBay. And this isn't fraud?
LMAO.
Free Trial
1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is false or is ignorant of its truth
According to Chris L, Crapmover's claim the Kennedy has an auction value of $150,000 is not a material representation "if the seller does not know it to be true." First, note Chris L's response conflicts with, and conveniently ignores, his own recitation of the elements of a fraud claim, i.e. "ignorant of its truth."
Second, the auction text states, "auction value $150,000." That is an outrageous lie. How would you prove Crapmovers knows it is false or is ignorant of its falsity? A piece of cake for a first-year lawyer. Introduce the thousands of Crapmover's auctions where he makes strikingly similar claims in auction after auction after auction about this very Kennedy series and all manner of other coins -- only to have them hammer on Ebay for a few hundred bucks. Strong indicia indeed Crapmovers knows his coins are not worth anywhere near Crapmover's stated, express auction value.
In a deposition, ask Crapmovers if he can recall or otherwise conjure any auction where a Kennedy hammered for $150K -- the squirming in the deponent's chair would be a moment to cherish. "So you're not aware of any 1964 Kennedy auctioning for $150,000? Where did you come up with the figure? I see, you made it up."
Question to Chris L: enlighten us; where did this stated "auction value" of $150,000 for a Kennedy come from? Can you support it with any independent auction data?
2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated
Chris L claims it is not "self evident" the representations on the auction page were intended to be relied on. In fact, this puported U of C lawyer needs an explanation as to why this is so. This is so idiotic it merits a hostile response. (I can only hope someone with your skills, such as they are, will be on the opposite side of one of my cases.) Crapmovers created an auction page with these misrepresentations, and Crapmovers paid money for said auction page to be listed on the world's largest electronic auction house for the purpose of auctioning the Kennedy -- the "reasonable contemplation."
What's more, let's look at what Crapmovers himselfsays about his auction description:
Everything you need to know about the coins we offer in auction is provided in great detail in our auction verbiage. . . . We always work very hard to provide you with all of the information you will need about the coins to make an informed purchase.
So here it is, in the seller's own hand, "everything" the bidder needs to know is contained on the auction page -- and the seller goes so far as to tell prospective bidders he's working "hard" to provide said information so you can make an "informed purchase."
Yet Chris L, this University of Chicago lawyer, cannot understand the seller "intended" these "representations" be relied on -- even thought the seller says almost exactly that.
Chris L, if you are a lawyer, I am embarrassed to call myself one.
Joe
You all get paid to cause trouble, then you get paid to
fix the trouble that you caused. Im with Shakespeare on this one.
Camelot
Game, set, match.
Russ, NCNE
so seriously. Perhaps its better to be just a bear.
Camelot
<< <i>Perhaps its better to be just a bear. >>
Even better to be a bear with a jelly donut!
Don
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
Camelot
My point is, is that even if the first four elements of fraud are met, it would be impossible to prove injury.
Your analysis fails to address this point.
How was the buyer injured? It does not matter that he over paid for the coin. I fail to see how he sustained an injury. Yes, he will probably never be able to sell the coin for what he/she paid for it. This is not an injury.
Camelot
I don't see a problem with a person stating the value of one of their items in an auction - I totally ignore it. The value will be decided at the end of the auction, not by the seller. The fact that he may have suckered people in with an obvious falsehood is disgusting, but not illegal.
Suppose I park my car in a parking garage downtown and there's a sign that says "We're not responsible if your car is destroyed". I know that sign's a meaningless lie, they know that sign's a meaningless lie, but if someone's car is stolen 95% of the time that unknowing person is going to assume that the sign is the law when it's not. Can you sue the garage for making a false claim?
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Awesome post. It's over, but the zombie is still running his mouth.
Free Trial
<< <i>The fact that he may have suckered people in with an obvious falsehood is disgusting, but not illegal. >>
Actually, it is illegal. If I sell you a worthless piece of swamp land by claiming that it has a specific value far in excess of any accepted real estate valuation principle, it's fraud. The only difference here is that it's a coin, rather than real estate.
Russ, NCNE
No Chris, that is not your point. Ten minutes ago, a reasoned response was given to each of your fraud "elements." Your omnibus response: I'm sorry, but your arguements do not meet the test. Plain and simple.
Well it's not so "plain and simple" for you now that the absurdity of your arguments has been exposed. In the span of a page of text you've flip-flopped from zero to possibly four of five elements being met -- and in the process a serious loss of credibility.