Intent is difficult to prove. But assume that the roles were reversed and an uninformed buyer offered this coin to a knowlegable buyer, at what price would this buyer consider this a good deal? If you can prove that the dealer knew that this was not a good deal, i.e. he had the intent to oversell a coin to someone that trusted his expertise and relied on it then a case for fraud could be made. Now I guess at what price you might consider this fraud and I chose anything over $11500 as the dealer has a right to be compensated for his services. As a dealer I would be very careful to tell any client he was getting a good deal.
As far as comparing this situation with the commem, I see no comparison at all. The dealer is reputed to be very knowlegable and thought the coins was worth to him what he paid for it. Someone always pays more than anyone else is willing or able to at an auction to win the coin.
A deal could be fraud or couldn't be in a court of law but in the court of public opinion we all have our ideas. I work in the lending business, in fact I work for the largest bank owned mortgage company in the US. I worked on commission and at the end of the month they settled up with me. Some deals I made nothing and some deals I made a lot. It may surprise some of you that there is no such thing "as a mortgage rate", its caveat emptor". States and the Feds have set usery rate caps to insure that borrowers aren't ripped off too much. Now they have to deal with payday companies who have attempted to circumvent these laws. I had a difficult client, an attorney who wanted to refi his large mortgage, the gal who had dealt with him before went through loan hell with him and in fact he had called her boss on him. She wanted no part of him. Luck my I got the call, and he told me he would pay no closing costs to refinance the loan, he was a good bank customer, blah blah blah, referred clients etc. Well the money was coming out of my pocket not the banks. So I calmy quoted him a quarter per cent higher and I ate his closing costs. Bottom line do to the size of the loan I hit a home run on the deal. He was happy, could brag to the world that he paid no closing costs and yes he did refer clients to me.
There is the opposite case where a client with a small balance wants to refi and I have to charge them more or I lose money on the deal. The client is convinced I am ripping him or her off, committing fraud, etc. The poor client ends up going to someone who charges a lower rate but packs him or here with tons of closing costs. The point of this ramble, that in neither case was their fraud the client got exactly what they thought they wanted. Neither client did as well as they thought. Good deals and or fraud are often in the eye of the buyer with no intent by the seller to mislead, its simple economics.
objection here irish.....intent is easy to prove ...when it has happens
you have to equate apples and apples...in your scenairo caveat emptor is indeed the rule ...as the deal is cut in theory and when its papered up all the disclaimers are there in fine print disclaiming anything you might of said to induce a deal...the client makes his economic decission based on how it impacts them and its done....and the papering is your cya
as far as the real meat here....as i said its not hard at all to prove intent...but lets break it down to civil or criminal
the acid test
civil...based on a ponderance of the evidence
criminal...beyond a reasonable doubt
criminal ...a man who robs a store with a rubber gun has no intent to kill.....nor does a man who robs a store with a empty gun....he who does so with a loaded gun has shown intent to kill...period...regardless of his actual deep hearted intent...as there has to be at least one scenario that could happen where he would use it...such as the store manager panicked and pulled his gun....the perp would then react and go into a defensive mode and shoot first if he could.....thus intent...no he didnt want to kill anyone...just get the cash and go...but he used the gun to kill...or try to...beyond a reasonable doubt....the key word here is want...no he did not want to ...but he intened to when he brought a loaded gun with him...period
civil is much easier.....when there is a pattern.....yes a one time shot is much harder to prove...but these things dont happen one time.....the perp buys for 100....slabs at "hoaky grading service"...and then points to the price sheets ( which are for pcgs-ngc -anacs coins only ) and says look here the coin bids at 10,000.....i`ll sell it to you at 9500......thats reasonable...and the seller commited fraud.....and when his tax returns are entered into evidence ...i will see a patern of it over and over again....and the perp will fry.....now if he shows you a price sheet ofr 10,000 and says i will sell it to you for 6,000....now a defense lawyer can indeed hide behind caveat emptor and i will have to aquiess as the buyer should of had more sense....
the fact still remains....hundreds of dealers are fraudulantly conducting business everyday on ebay ...lying ....cheating... duping and stealing from the public....they know it and they will pay...sooner or later..they will pay...they always do...they know who they are......its not a question is it a 64 ...or 65...its not question of is it a 64 or a 61......its a question of they paid 100 and will sell it to you for 10,000...thats the fraud.......and please dont refer to a discovery coin where you paid 100 and its now a pop vam worth 10,000.....that is luck and skill on your part and wont hold it against you if you got 100,000 for your 100...if the market will bear it
the fraud on ebay is not good.....
and anyone with a brain knows that its not good for the hobby as once burned twice shy.....and the hobby loses another collector
my goal is to find the monsters and i go where they are but i sometimes miss some.... so if you have any and want to sell IM THE BUYER FOR THEM!!!
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
Greg I am not sure we are disagreeing, I stated in my post that anything over the highest auction price could be construed as fraud. The question is at what price would fraud be committed. Obviously it isn't easy to proof or a whole lot of prosecuters don't care to go after these characters as ebay and other venues have become ripe with this.
For those of you who like legalese, fraud is defined by case law and by statute.
In my state of California, Civil Code Section 1709 in summary states that one who wilfuuly deceives another with the intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury is liable for any damages suffered.
Section 1709 is somewhat hard to understand, however the next Section, Section 1710 clers things up abit. In summary Section 1710 states that "deceit" as used in Section 1709 means:
a. representing something as true, by someone who knows it is not true;
b. representing something as true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it is true;
c. the non disclosure of a fact by one who has a duty to disclose same; and
d. the making of a promise without any intention of performing same.
California's statutory definintions of fraud probably are the same as the definitions in the other 49 states.
In the coin collecting hobby, as in elsewhere, fraud would be very difficult to prove, although in reality it probably happens more often than we think that it does.
I think it is up to the buyer to know what he is buying. Personally, I don't buy anything without having some idea of its value (be it a coin, a repair on my car, something that a service provider is selling to me, etc.). So long as the seller does not misrepresent the coin (it's authenticity and grade), then I would say that it is up to the buyer to beware as to what he's buying.
This kind of reminds me of the stock broker that called me at work out of the blue... he rambled continually on the phone (without stopping to spit) about Nokia stock, and then at the end, he asked, "OK, how much should I put you down for... $50,000 or $100,000?" It was quite comical, looking back at it.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
a. representing something as true, by someone who knows it is not true;
b. representing something as true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it is true; . . . In the coin collecting hobby, as in elsewhere, fraud would be very difficult to prove...
I don't know about that. It seems to me that anyone that makes a false statement without the ability to prove reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true is at risk.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Comments
As far as comparing this situation with the commem, I see no comparison at all. The dealer is reputed to be very knowlegable
A deal could be fraud or couldn't be in a court of law but in the court of public opinion we all have our ideas. I work in the lending business, in fact I work for the largest bank owned mortgage company in the US. I worked on commission and at the end of the month they settled up with me. Some deals I made nothing and some deals I made a lot. It may surprise some of you that there is no such thing "as a mortgage rate", its caveat emptor". States and the Feds have set usery rate caps to insure that borrowers aren't ripped off too much. Now they have to deal with payday companies who have attempted to circumvent these laws. I had a difficult client, an attorney who wanted to refi his large mortgage, the gal who had dealt with him before went through loan hell with him and in fact he had called her boss on him. She wanted no part of him. Luck my I got the call, and he told me he would pay no closing costs to refinance the loan, he was a good bank customer, blah blah blah, referred clients etc. Well the money was coming out of my pocket not the banks. So I calmy quoted him a quarter per cent higher and I ate his closing costs. Bottom line do to the size of the loan I hit a home run on the deal. He was happy, could brag to the world that he paid no closing costs and yes he did refer clients to me.
There is the opposite case where a client with a small balance wants to refi and I have to charge them more or I lose money on the deal. The client is convinced I am ripping him or her off, committing fraud, etc. The poor client ends up going to someone who charges a lower rate but packs him or here with tons of closing costs. The point of this ramble, that in neither case was their fraud the client got exactly what they thought they wanted. Neither client did as well as they thought. Good deals and or fraud are often in the eye of the buyer with no intent by the seller to mislead, its simple economics.
you have to equate apples and apples...in your scenairo caveat emptor is indeed the rule ...as the deal is cut in theory and when its papered up all the disclaimers are there in fine print disclaiming anything you might of said to induce a deal...the client makes his economic decission based on how it impacts them and its done....and the papering is your cya
as far as the real meat here....as i said its not hard at all to prove intent...but lets break it down to civil or criminal
the acid test
civil...based on a ponderance of the evidence
criminal...beyond a reasonable doubt
criminal ...a man who robs a store with a rubber gun has no intent to kill.....nor does a man who robs a store with a empty gun....he who does so with a loaded gun has shown intent to kill...period...regardless of his actual deep hearted intent...as there has to be at least one scenario that could happen where he would use it...such as the store manager panicked and pulled his gun....the perp would then react and go into a defensive mode and shoot first if he could.....thus intent...no he didnt want to kill anyone...just get the cash and go...but he used the gun to kill...or try to...beyond a reasonable doubt....the key word here is want...no he did not want to ...but he intened to when he brought a loaded gun with him...period
civil is much easier.....when there is a pattern.....yes a one time shot is much harder to prove...but these things dont happen one time.....the perp buys for 100....slabs at "hoaky grading service"...and then points to the price sheets ( which are for pcgs-ngc -anacs coins only ) and says look here the coin bids at 10,000.....i`ll sell it to you at 9500......thats reasonable...and the seller commited fraud.....and when his tax returns are entered into evidence ...i will see a patern of it over and over again....and the perp will fry.....now if he shows you a price sheet ofr 10,000 and says i will sell it to you for 6,000....now a defense lawyer can indeed hide behind caveat emptor and i will have to aquiess as the buyer should of had more sense....
the fact still remains....hundreds of dealers are fraudulantly conducting business everyday on ebay ...lying ....cheating... duping and stealing from the public....they know it and they will pay...sooner or later..they will pay...they always do...they know who they are......its not a question is it a 64 ...or 65...its not question of is it a 64 or a 61......its a question of they paid 100 and will sell it to you for 10,000...thats the fraud.......and please dont refer to a discovery coin where you paid 100 and its now a pop vam worth 10,000.....that is luck and skill on your part and wont hold it against you if you got 100,000 for your 100...if the market will bear it
the fraud on ebay is not good.....
and anyone with a brain knows that its not good for the hobby as once burned twice shy.....and the hobby loses another collector
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
Fraud. This time it is an altered 1807, now bid to $716 for a tooled coin worth less than $100.
There has to be some mechanism in place to balance out the equation for people who have more money than brains.
If they aren't going to get any smarter, then they need to have less money.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
In my state of California, Civil Code Section 1709 in summary states that one who wilfuuly deceives another with the intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury is liable for any damages suffered.
Section 1709 is somewhat hard to understand, however the next Section, Section 1710 clers things up abit. In summary Section 1710 states that "deceit" as used in Section 1709 means:
a. representing something as true, by someone who knows it is not true;
b. representing something as true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it is true;
c. the non disclosure of a fact by one who has a duty to disclose same; and
d. the making of a promise without any intention of performing same.
California's statutory definintions of fraud probably are the same as the definitions in the other 49 states.
In the coin collecting hobby, as in elsewhere, fraud would be very difficult to prove, although in reality it probably happens more often than we think that it does.
This kind of reminds me of the stock broker that called me at work out of the blue... he rambled continually on the phone (without stopping to spit) about Nokia stock, and then at the end, he asked, "OK, how much should I put you down for... $50,000 or $100,000?" It was quite comical, looking back at it.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
a. representing something as true, by someone who knows it is not true;
b. representing something as true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it is true;
.
.
.
In the coin collecting hobby, as in elsewhere, fraud would be very difficult to prove...
I don't know about that. It seems to me that anyone that makes a false statement without the ability to prove reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true is at risk.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.