That's great, resort to insulting remarks. Instead of trying to elevate the level of discourse on this forum, you drag it down a level. Real nice.
Look. Why is a Picasso worth millions of dollars? It's because someone was willing to pay that amount for it. To someone who doesn't appreciate art, the same Picasso isn't worth anything.
This seller says the coin has a value of $150K? Everyone knows it's not worth that much? But, so what? Who is to say that the seller doesn't honestly believe that his coin is worth $150K? If he believes it's worth $150K, then that's what it's worth to him. What is fraudulent for attesting to this?
Yes, I agree that the guy is puffing up his sale, but this cannot possibly rise to the level of tortous fraud.
We're not insulting; we haven't even started with the lawyer jokes. Yet. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion as long as it agrees with mine. Having grown up outside Lafayette, IN I have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I'm sure you're better looking than Diane.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignornant of its truth.
How do you prove that the coin isn't worth $150K? Yes, prior auctions have never realized a price close to this amount. However, if the seller honestly believes he has a $150K coin, how can you argue with that? In order to prevail on this element you would need to prove that the seller made a "bad-faith" assessment of it's value. (I'm playing devil's advocate here - if he honestly believed he had a $150K coin how can you refute this?) It's pretty much his belief against everyone else's.
2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated.
The seller would likely assert as a defense that he did not intend for a seller to rely on this assertion. He is simple stating what he believes the coin to be worth. No where in the auction does he affirmatively state that the coin can be sold for $150K. His statement is one of opinion. No one needs to rely on his opinion. In order to prevail, you need to establish the seller's intent to make a material misrepresentation of fact. His defense would be that it was a statement of opinion.
3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation.
Here, you would need to prove that the buyer, in good-faith, did not know that the statement of was false. In other words, the buyer would need to attest to the fact that he honestly believed that the coin was worth $150K based on the seller's affirmative statement that it was.
4) the person's rightful or justified reliance on the misrepresentation.
Here, one would need to prove that the reason for making the purchase was that he was relying on the statement that the coin is worth $150K. There is no evidence in the auction that the seller is affirmatively claiming that the coin is worth $150K. Again, the seller's defense is that it is his opinion that the coin is worth $150K. Whether or not is was reasonable for the buyer to rely on the seller's opinion in making the purchase is a matter for the trier-of-fact to determine. We all have our own opinions on this one.
5) the proximate injury to the person
The seller's defense would likely be that the seller was not injured at all. (I already know everyone else's opposing opinions on this.) The fact of the matter is that the seller needs to prove his damages, and the facts of this auction don't support that finding. The coin was sold for $600 (I don't know the exact figure). Did the buyer try and re-sell the coin for $150K? We don't know.
The only thing we do know is that the buyer paid $600 for a coin that everyone believes is worth far less than that amount. The trouble is that there is no way to prove that the buyer was proximately injured by relying on the seller's statement.
In my short time here i've learned soooooo much from the other members (well...most of them anyway :-)
In a very recent time i would have looked at that auction and thought "WOW"!! What a killer deal !!!
Now i know better, thanks to the "experts" here who have been nice enough to lend thier knowledge to the rest of us, and the lively debates that are always very informative.
............................. Thank You ..............................
Wow! It's 8 months to the day since I last had a cigarette, and 8 days since I had a beer. This thread takes all of the pressure off of wanting either. Keep up the good work people....Ken...
ChrisL is not saying what the seller is doing is not wrong, he's arguing a legal point that has nothing to do with right or wrong. It's whether you can convict the seller in court of fraud. Not guilty does not imply innocence. There that's my 0.02. Law is like medicine, there's a lot of gray area. That's why there are trials.
ChrisL...I would like to step back to the first post you made for this thread....the one where you ask why other people poke their noses into these things....
Well, do you have a loved one or a friend? If so, would YOU try to keep them from being "taken" by someone? What if they collected coins and were going to bid on the auction in question? What if they bid $3000 and asked you to see their "deal of the century"?
Would you congratulate the person? Would you tell them not to pay as they overpaid by $2999.50 + shipping?
Seriously...if you can answer that, then maybe you can answer why a lot of people on here get upset and try to "rescue" others or comment on the deceptions of the dealers.
I'm a firm believer in caveat emptor. Anyone who makes a purchase, without doing their research, does so at their own risk. Of course there are exceptions to this rule; for example when there is a fraudulent concealment of some material fact that would adversely affect the value of the item in question. Suppose someone were to buy a house infected with termites, and the seller knows this fact, denies this fact, and acts to conceal the termite evidence. The injury that the buyer suffered is obvious - he is stuck with a house worth less than what he paid for it. The buyer does have some recourse as he relied on a material misrepresentation as to the quality of his purchase to his detriment. (Please don't confuse this outcome with my position on this coin auction as the facts between these two cases are different - the seller in the auction does not affirmatively assert that the coin is worth $150K, it's his opinion.) Denying that a house has termites, when in fact it does, is a matter of fact - not opinion.
I applaud you for your efforts to educate collectors.
My criticism is directed towards those that would interfer with a sale, when they are not party to the sale, in an act to protect an unsuspecting buyer. If I were asked my opinion on the sale/price of something, I would give it. However, I find it paternalistic to try and police every sale or contract for the reason that a party to the sale or contract might be making a bad deal. It comes down to substituting one person's judgment for that of another - which is wrong. Essentially, it's like saying, "you made a bad deal because I know more about this than you do, now go get your money back." People have the right to contract as they wish.
<< <i>My criticism is directed towards those that would interfer with a sale, when they are not party to the sale, in an act to protect an unsuspecting buyer. >>
Nobody here interfered with the the parting of a fool and his money. The buyer won the coin that he bid on, his loss. All we have done here is comment on a deal that the majority here would shy away from based on experience among fellow forum members looking to be educated on what coins are a good value and which ones that are not. Period!
As lowly attorney-fodder, I will add my 2 cents. Whether or not it is fraudulent to systematically rip people on ebay, it is a defensible position to do so. One side's lawyers will say one thing, the other lawyers will say another thing, the typical jury where these cases are heard has an average IQ just above that of a carrot, and who knows where the verdict ends up. It's risky enough that few would even try to make the case for fraud.
The real problem is that that common sense, which those of us non-attorneys hold so dear, tells us that it is (or at least should be) illegal or fraudulent to systematically rip people on ebay. Unfortunately, common sense has little to do with the outcome in such a case.
We see to be missing an important element here, and a legal one at that, which serves to drive equitable and legal transactions:
Fair market value represents what a willing seller (no problem here) and an educated, informed buyer (big problem) are willing to exchange in an arms-length transaction ... The world, and prisons, are full of sellers who took advantage of the bliss of ignorance ...
Wow! And I missed all the lawyer action today! Damn! It's always when I'm out of the office.
By the way Sequitur -- NNNNNIIIIIIICCCCCEEEE! Great response. I can't really add to what he has said, so I'm not going to try to enter the fray on this one.
Lawyering skills are sometimes like a new bike -- sometimes you just can't wait to take it out for a test ride, especially for new attorneys.
I think that arguing the legal trivialities of this particular coin auction is completely not the point- this is a coin message board and not a legal message board. What is important is that collectors are educated about dealers who prey upon the ignorant by fanning the flames of greed. The coin hobby is a great one, but there are so many ruthless sharks out there who misrepresent coins, fake coins, alter coins, etc. To claim that this seller does not know this coin isn't worth $150,000 is absurd- they know exactly what they're doing, and they do it without regard of honesty or integrity. It's wonderful that there are collectors like Russ who take the time to alert people with less experience about potential pitfalls in the world of coins and ebay.
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
Russ -- I wasn't trying to be insulting to ChrisL. I'm sure he's a fine attorney. He can state his arguments cohesively and succinctly. I was merely pointing out that new lawyers need to practice and this is a great place to do so. He knew that he was going to get jumped when he posted his thoughts and he tested the waters. I commend him. I doubt if he even believes his own argument, but if he does, he's got some more practicing to do. Otherwise he did a decent job defending his position.
I think coinmovers originally started as a front to peddle Trugrade coins, which are slabbed not far from our favorite ebay seller. Now they are selling PCI for their "high end" stuff. Did I see a Proof 70 1950 Franklin in their magic bag of coins?
Being suspicious, I paid coinmovers a visit today. Behind the all the cases of Proof 70 graded pocket change, I saw the horse that came in dead last at the Kentucky Derby. It had a used cotton-candy tube duct taped to its forehead. When I asked Mr. Coinmover about the horse, he said; "It's not a horse, it's a unicorn."
And I thought they didn't exist.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
I just read every post and I salute Mike Dixon ... on another front, hopefully PCGS is preparing to take some of the wind out of the sales of junk sellers who cite the CU Price Guide: David Hall's response from the Q&A Forum ...
All Said and done... Looking back over this sale and checking into their feedback, page after page of sales to the same person, on the same day, smacks of something more than stupity on behalf of a buyer. Can you say feedback boosting, or maybe money laundering. Something is rotten where, more so than the holders the coins are in. Big brother IRS maybe should look into this deal-(deals).
No offense RGL, but David's comment doesn't really make me any more comfortable. So people who sell this junk on Ebay will just change their wording a little to fit the new PCGS price guide. Perhaps PCGS should either scrap the Price guide or at least make it a little more realistic.
<< <i><< 3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >> Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680 >>
i would have to disagree w/ russ on this point. that's like saying nobody would buy a $2000 coin for $69,000, but somebody just did, & it was in a PCGS SLAB.
<< <i>So what if he cannot sell it for what he paid for it? THIS IS NOT AN INJURY. >>
sorry to say, i agree w/ chrisl's statement also.
<< <i>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. >>
unfortunately, that key difference is why you cannot compare the sale of real estate & coins. the type of "sale of real estate" you described could reasonably be construed to have been made on the assumption of financial gain. otoh, it's impossible to prove that coin sales are made on the basis of financial gain, because too many collectors DON'T buy coins for financial gain. there are too many examples of collectors that willfully lose $$$ on coins to counteract your argument.
i happen to think that chrisl's defense of his OPINION has validity, & i welcome his OPINION. & it's sad to see a mob mentality rise in another instance where his OPINION is not in line w/ that of the mob.
just to be clear, i think the ebay auction in question is baloney, though i would not resort to the word "fraud". for it to be fraud (imo), the seller would have to explicitly state "i guarantee you can resell this coin for $150,000", & then not back up that guarantee. ie. for me, fraud is explicitly breaking a promise of an explicit return.
Several people have sent me e-mails asking how I would go about exposing third tier services and dealers that appear to be dishonest. I've posted this before and there are always skeptics saying it won't work, but it will work if you just do it. The reason most people say it won't work is because they don't want to take the time to try it. . Most states have a consumer protection division in the Attorney General's office. Contact the attorney general's office in your state AND also in the state the tpg or dealer resides in. File a written complaint with all the evidence, etc you have collected. One complaint will probably not motivate them to take action, but two or more coming in will have them take action. This only works if YOU do it. Waiting for somebody else to take action allows the tpg or dealer to continue what they are doing. . Take the same steps in contacting the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau in the state the tpg or dealer resides. When you have made the complaints, follow up on them. What is the saying: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Once again: This only works if YOU do it. Waiting for somebody else to take action allows the tpg or dealer to continue what they are doing. . When I had the store in Kentucky, I wrote a letter to a columnist from one of the card magazines. He didn't like my letter and contacted the state attorney general's office saying I was engaging in deceptive trade practices. This one letter and his one complaint cost me $10k. I hadn't done anything wrong, but I used poor judgment in writing this guy. This is why I am against websites, trying to expose tpg and bad dealers. The written word can come back to haunt you. Why open yourself up for a lawsuit when there are other avenues? . Don't believe this will work? Several of you try it and follow up on your complaints.
Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 3-5, 2025 at the Eisenhower Hotel Ballroom, Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
<< <i>When I had the store in Kentucky, I wrote a letter to a columnist from one of the card magazines. He didn't like my letter and contacted the state attorney general's office saying I was engaging in deceptive trade practices. This one letter and his one complaint cost me $10k >>
chrisl, i for 1 hope you stick around. i appreciate your willingness to defend your opinions. it might help establish your reputation if you could kindly provide numismatic posts, etc in any of the myriad threads extant on the forum.
Comments
Look.
Why is a Picasso worth millions of dollars? It's because someone was willing to pay that amount for it. To someone who doesn't appreciate art, the same Picasso isn't worth anything.
This seller says the coin has a value of $150K? Everyone knows it's not worth that much? But, so what? Who is to say that the seller doesn't honestly believe that his coin is worth $150K? If he believes it's worth $150K, then that's what it's worth to him. What is fraudulent for attesting to this?
Yes, I agree that the guy is puffing up his sale, but this cannot possibly rise to the level of tortous fraud.
Gandyjai
Camelot
Free Trial
Prima facia fraud:
1) a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignornant of its truth.
How do you prove that the coin isn't worth $150K? Yes, prior auctions have never realized a price close to this amount. However, if the seller honestly believes he has a $150K coin, how can you argue with that? In order to prevail on this element you would need to prove that the seller made a "bad-faith" assessment of it's value. (I'm playing devil's advocate here - if he honestly believed he had a $150K coin how can you refute this?) It's pretty much his belief against everyone else's.
2) the maker's intent that the representation be relied on by the person and in a manner reasonably contemplated.
The seller would likely assert as a defense that he did not intend for a seller to rely on this assertion. He is simple stating what he believes the coin to be worth. No where in the auction does he affirmatively state that the coin can be sold for $150K. His statement is one of opinion. No one needs to rely on his opinion. In order to prevail, you need to establish the seller's intent to make a material misrepresentation of fact. His defense would be that it was a statement of opinion.
3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation.
Here, you would need to prove that the buyer, in good-faith, did not know that the statement of was false. In other words, the buyer would need to attest to the fact that he honestly believed that the coin was worth $150K based on the seller's affirmative statement that it was.
4) the person's rightful or justified reliance on the misrepresentation.
Here, one would need to prove that the reason for making the purchase was that he was relying on the statement that the coin is worth $150K. There is no evidence in the auction that the seller is affirmatively claiming that the coin is worth $150K. Again, the seller's defense is that it is his opinion that the coin is worth $150K. Whether or not is was reasonable for the buyer to rely on the seller's opinion in making the purchase is a matter for the trier-of-fact to determine. We all have our own opinions on this one.
5) the proximate injury to the person
The seller's defense would likely be that the seller was not injured at all. (I already know everyone else's opposing opinions on this.) The fact of the matter is that the seller needs to prove his damages, and the facts of this auction don't support that finding. The coin was sold for $600 (I don't know the exact figure). Did the buyer try and re-sell the coin for $150K? We don't know.
The only thing we do know is that the buyer paid $600 for a coin that everyone believes is worth far less than that amount. The trouble is that there is no way to prove that the buyer was proximately injured by relying on the seller's statement.
In my short time here i've learned soooooo much from the other members (well...most of them anyway :-)
In a very recent time i would have looked at that auction and thought "WOW"!! What a killer deal !!!
Now i know better, thanks to the "experts" here who have been nice enough to lend thier knowledge to the rest of us, and the lively debates that are always very informative.
............................. Thank You ..............................
Unfortunately, there is someone here who claims to be an attorney ramble on about how this auction was not deceiving and fraudulent.
K6AZ - It's great to know that differing opinions are so welcome on this forum. You are a true gentleman.
Well, do you have a loved one or a friend? If so, would YOU try to keep them from being "taken" by someone? What if they collected coins and were going to bid on the auction in question? What if they bid $3000 and asked you to see their "deal of the century"?
Would you congratulate the person? Would you tell them not to pay as they overpaid by $2999.50 + shipping?
Seriously...if you can answer that, then maybe you can answer why a lot of people on here get upset and try to "rescue" others or comment on the deceptions of the dealers.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>We're not insulting; we haven't even started with the lawyer jokes. >>
OK. You made me do it. I heard this one last week:
A kid, after being told the facts of life by his father, poses a question - Dad, is it possible to get a girl pregnant by having anal sex?
Dad answers - Yes, son. That's how lawyers are made.
I'm a firm believer in caveat emptor. Anyone who makes a purchase, without doing their research, does so at their own risk. Of course there are exceptions to this rule; for example when there is a fraudulent concealment of some material fact that would adversely affect the value of the item in question. Suppose someone were to buy a house infected with termites, and the seller knows this fact, denies this fact, and acts to conceal the termite evidence. The injury that the buyer suffered is obvious - he is stuck with a house worth less than what he paid for it. The buyer does have some recourse as he relied on a material misrepresentation as to the quality of his purchase to his detriment. (Please don't confuse this outcome with my position on this coin auction as the facts between these two cases are different - the seller in the auction does not affirmatively assert that the coin is worth $150K, it's his opinion.) Denying that a house has termites, when in fact it does, is a matter of fact - not opinion.
I applaud you for your efforts to educate collectors.
My criticism is directed towards those that would interfer with a sale, when they are not party to the sale, in an act to protect an unsuspecting buyer. If I were asked my opinion on the sale/price of something, I would give it. However, I find it paternalistic to try and police every sale or contract for the reason that a party to the sale or contract might be making a bad deal. It comes down to substituting one person's judgment for that of another - which is wrong. Essentially, it's like saying, "you made a bad deal because I know more about this than you do, now go get your money back." People have the right to contract as they wish.
That's the kind of response I would expect from a guy like you.
That's not nice!
Judging from your posts, you're obviously an articulate and highly educated individual.
I think we all need a group hug.
Marc
<< <i>My criticism is directed towards those that would interfer with a sale, when they are not party to the sale, in an act to protect an unsuspecting buyer. >>
Nobody here interfered with the the parting of a fool and his money. The buyer won the coin that he bid on, his loss. All we have done here is comment on a deal that the majority here would shy away from based on experience among fellow forum members looking to be educated on what coins are a good value and which ones that are not. Period!
Regards,
Don
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
The real problem is that that common sense, which those of us non-attorneys hold so dear, tells us that it is (or at least should be) illegal or fraudulent to systematically rip people on ebay. Unfortunately, common sense has little to do with the outcome in such a case.
Fair market value represents what a willing seller (no problem here) and an educated, informed buyer (big problem) are willing to exchange in an arms-length transaction ... The world, and prisons, are full of sellers who took advantage of the bliss of ignorance ...
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
By the way Sequitur -- NNNNNIIIIIIICCCCCEEEE! Great response. I can't really add to what he has said, so I'm not going to try to enter the fray on this one.
Lawyering skills are sometimes like a new bike -- sometimes you just can't wait to take it out for a test ride, especially for new attorneys.
Michael
<< <i>Lawyering skills are sometimes like a new bike -- sometimes you just can't wait to take it out for a test ride, especially for new attorneys. >>
Uh oh! I think the mysterious Mr. L just got popped upside the head.
Russ, NCNE
.
Personally, I don't like that idea! ChrisL, please keep posting!!!!!!
Michael
<< <i>I doubt if he even believes his own argument, but if he does, he's got some more practicing to do. >>
And, pop goes the other side of the head!
Russ, NCNE
Being suspicious, I paid coinmovers a visit today. Behind the all the cases of Proof 70 graded pocket change, I saw the horse that came in dead last at the Kentucky Derby. It had a used cotton-candy tube duct taped to its forehead. When I asked Mr. Coinmover about the horse, he said; "It's not a horse, it's a unicorn."
And I thought they didn't exist.
<< <i>KMA. >>
smoooch!
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)
Michael
<< <i><< 3) the person's ignorance of the falsity of the representation >> Self evident. NOBODY would knowingly buy a $20 coin for $680 >>
i would have to disagree w/ russ on this point. that's like saying nobody would buy a $2000 coin for $69,000, but somebody just did, & it was in a PCGS SLAB.
<< <i>So what if he cannot sell it for what he paid for it? THIS IS NOT AN INJURY. >>
sorry to say, i agree w/ chrisl's statement also.
<< <i>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. >>
unfortunately, that key difference is why you cannot compare the sale of real estate & coins. the type of "sale of real estate" you described could reasonably be construed to have been made on the assumption of financial gain. otoh, it's impossible to prove that coin sales are made on the basis of financial gain, because too many collectors DON'T buy coins for financial gain. there are too many examples of collectors that willfully lose $$$ on coins to counteract your argument.
i happen to think that chrisl's defense of his OPINION has validity, & i welcome his OPINION. & it's sad to see a mob mentality rise in another instance where his OPINION is not in line w/ that of the mob.
just to be clear, i think the ebay auction in question is baloney, though i would not resort to the word "fraud". for it to be fraud (imo), the seller would have to explicitly state "i guarantee you can resell this coin for $150,000", & then not back up that guarantee. ie. for me, fraud is explicitly breaking a promise of an explicit return.
K S
.
Most states have a consumer protection division in the Attorney General's office. Contact the attorney general's office in your state AND also in the state the tpg or dealer resides in. File a written complaint with all the evidence, etc you have collected. One complaint will probably not motivate them to take action, but two or more coming in will have them take action. This only works if YOU do it. Waiting for somebody else to take action allows the tpg or dealer to continue what they are doing.
.
Take the same steps in contacting the Federal Trade Commission and the Better Business Bureau in the state the tpg or dealer resides. When you have made the complaints, follow up on them. What is the saying: "The squeaky wheel gets the oil." Once again: This only works if YOU do it. Waiting for somebody else to take action allows the tpg or dealer to continue what they are doing.
.
When I had the store in Kentucky, I wrote a letter to a columnist from one of the card magazines. He didn't like my letter and contacted the state attorney general's office saying I was engaging in deceptive trade practices. This one letter and his one complaint cost me $10k. I hadn't done anything wrong, but I used poor judgment in writing this guy. This is why I am against websites, trying to expose tpg and bad dealers. The written word can come back to haunt you. Why open yourself up for a lawsuit when there are other avenues?
.
Don't believe this will work? Several of you try it and follow up on your complaints.
<< <i>When I had the store in Kentucky, I wrote a letter to a columnist from one of the card magazines. He didn't like my letter and contacted the state attorney general's office saying I was engaging in deceptive trade practices. This one letter and his one complaint cost me $10k >>
can you elaborate? or is it too risky???
K S
a dorky "welcome" to ya!
K S