I guess with the "whoever you are" statement you still like to play that because of the profile not open. What you have just demonstrated is exactly why some folks don't open their profile. You have said yourself in the past on the security aspects of the Internet. I've dealt with and met in person many dealers and collectors on this board. I'm on many dealers approval lists. They know who I am. Why isn't my profile open? Heh, mainly because I don't feel like it and never thought about it at the beginning. But the behavior I've seen on here I have no intent to open it. No secrets, just not every bodies business.
I've stayed out of these flame fests for a long time. Seems some of you dealers like to have gang bangs on collectors here. That's OK, soon there will be a show and some will be whining how "Tired" they are.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
I'm just wondering if it was the other way around and Beepy bid on the high end and told Superior that he had already spent that money and couldn't pay and it was a mistake, hmmm....
Maybe Beepy should bid on all of Superior's auctions and go "ooops, so sorry, it was a mistake!"
edited to add - don't listen to me, I just ramble..............
Seriously, now. The coin was sold to Gartneteye on 7/20. And Superior let the auction go on until 7/27, when Beepy supposedly "won" it? To me, that's inexcusable. About putting down what you do for a living, I would not have done it, unless it were correspondences within the profession. But heck, that's just me.
<< <i>Oh - I forgot my point: Let's try and figure out "WHAT'S right" here - meaning the try and solve a problem, not create a bigger problem.
SG buys the next available MS 70 PCGS Jeff dollar and ships it to BP.
What else is there to "figure out" counselor? >>
Ahhh Stiffy, maybe with all of Beeby's ultimatums he may no longer be entitled to that "Relief". Perhaps posting a thread on a public forum with the intent to cause economic harm where the seller has a legitimate right to rescind based on the CA case of Donovan v. RRL Corporation, 26 Cal. 4th 261 (Cal. 2001) (which is pretty close to Beepy's situation) would result in Beepy being liable to Superior - stranger things have happened in litigation. (you'll find a lot more of Donovan on page 9 of this thread). What part of the CA court's ruling don't you understand? This part?
"We conclude that a contract satisfying the statute of frauds arose from defendant's advertisement and plaintiff's tender of the advertised price, but that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact provides a basis for rescinding the contract. Although Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision (e), justifies a reasonable expectation on the part of consumers that an automobile dealer intends that such an advertisement constitute an offer, and that the offer can be accepted by paying the advertised price, this statute does not supplant governing common law principles authorizing rescission of a contract on the ground of mistake. As we shall explain, rescission is warranted here because the evidence establishes that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact was made in good faith, defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, and enforcement of the contract with the erroneous price would be unconscionable. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal."
Also, If you happen to read the emails he wrote to Superior, (which to use his phraseology are somewhat "childish", if not downright "Ugly") particulary the last comment that if they don't satisfy him by Monday 8/22 "Failing that, suit will be filed on Tuesday, August 23." Looks like he may have closed the door on that option - Do you think he filed suit on "Tuesday, August 23." If he didn't, did he lie? (a deliberate false statement?? - horrors - less than the absolute truth, is that transgression sanctionable under the WI code of ethics - or can lawyers play fast and lose with the truth to negotiate a better postition?) I wonder if he even prepared that lawsuit between the 18th and the 23rd? Or maybe he didn't intend to sue at all but instead try a little public rage and post a thread here.
<< <i>If I find such a coin first, I will buy it. I will then sue Superior Galleries for the difference between what I paid for the replacement coin and what I agreed to pay Superior Galleries for the coin I won at auction, plus any additional costs and/or expenses I incur as a result of Superior Galleries' breach of contract. Regardless of outcome of the lawsuit (though I have no doubt whatsoever how my claim will fare), I also will post truthful, explicit, negative feedback regarding this transaction on eBay. Such feedback will include the fact that the auction was a sham, that I was deliberately lied to about the transaction by a Superior Galleries representative, and that Superior Galleries refused to honor its contract with me because Superior Galleries felt it was better to screw me over than spend the money necessary to fulfill the contract. Given that lawsuits are public records, I also will post a detailed account of the progress of my lawsuit on any and all coin forum message boards I can find. All accounts I post will be truthful, and thus not very supportive of Superior Galleries' business practices. I leave it to you to determine how these activities will affect Superior Galleries' business reputation. >>
With all due respect to Beepy's anger about this unfortunate situation, looks pretty much like a case of legal bludgeoning to me - Suppose the statements bolded above turn out to be untrue and Beepy's intent is to cause Superior economic harm? And just suppose Beepy loses his "slam dunk case? What then? - Ever hear of "Malicious Abuse of Process" - there's also Intentional Torts such as Interference with Business Relationship, maybe others - Beepy's emails don't present him in the light of a Widow or Orphan who's been screwed over by some malicious, predatory business, they present him as a very sharp individual willing to push the envelope to get his way. Ever represented a lawyer in a Court room? - You got to work hard to present a lawyer as a sympathetic Plaintiff.
I don't know how this will get resolved, or if it ever will, but if you think it ought to be litigated, that's what the Courts are for.
If you need a $100 case, maybe Beepy could use your "counsel" - I'm certain it would be "wise" - just don't stiff him.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain Newmismatist
<< Oh - I forgot my point: Let's try and figure out "WHAT'S right" here - meaning the try and solve a problem, not create a bigger problem.
SG buys the next available MS 70 PCGS Jeff dollar and ships it to BP.
What else is there to "figure out" counselor? >>
"Ahhh Stiffy, maybe with all of Beeby's ultimatums he may no longer be entitled to that "Relief". Perhaps posting a thread on a public forum with the intent to cause economic harm where the seller has a legitimate right to rescind based on the CA case of Donovan v. RRL Corporation, 26 Cal. 4th 261 (Cal. 2001) (which is pretty close to Beepy's situation) would result in Beepy being liable to Superior - stranger things have happened in litigation. (you'll find a lot more of Donovan on page 9 of this thread). What part of the CA court's ruling don't you understand? This part?"
Ahh [fill in your own demeaning label here] maybe I will not concede that a suit will be maintained in Cali. I suggest suit in plaintiff's home state and let SG answer. All the above crap is not law in Wisconsin. Why not have SG sue beepy then? Maybe your analysis will hold h2o then.
"We conclude that a contract satisfying the statute of frauds arose from defendant's advertisement and plaintiff's tender of the advertised price, but that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact provides a basis for rescinding the contract. Although Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision (e), justifies a reasonable expectation on the part of consumers that an automobile dealer intends that such an advertisement constitute an offer, and that the offer can be accepted by paying the advertised price, this statute does not supplant governing common law principles authorizing rescission of a contract on the ground of mistake. As we shall explain, rescission is warranted here because the evidence establishes that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact was made in good faith, defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, and enforcement of the contract with the erroneous price would be unconscionable. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal."
I do not find that case on all fours with the osternsible case at bar. There was no error in price. There was a unilateral mistake of quantity available in one vcase and price in the other. This is a straight up K action. I doubt Cali law would let SG off the hook on your case anyway. I don't know if it is "good" law in Cali still, but I do not believe that law is exported to Wisconsin, where the decisive action will likely take place. Sure, you can say that SG will try to remove it from state court to federal, but there will be no jurisdiction under the facts known. They may try to challenge the jurisdiction of the state court, but with International Shoe and its proogeny, particularly World Wide Volkswagon, you might note that if defendants made an effort to market in Wisconsin, they might be amenable to service there. Even if not, what will they pay to quash the service? That is the reality here. You cannot make Beeper file in Cali, so your analysis is a waste... Unless this goes to trial and choice of laws conflicts occur. But what is the likelihood of trial in this case? I say: NIl. This ain't going to trial, and it seems like you want to try to BS a settlement. ha
"Also, If you happen to read the emails he wrote to Superior, (which to use his phraseology are somewhat "childish", if not downright "Ugly")"
SG first told him that they sent the coin earlier the same day he called. But they didn't do that. You must do equity to get an eqitable remedy, as you may have forgotten. SG has unclean hands here.
"particulary the last comment that if they don't satisfy him by Monday 8/22 "Failing that, suit will be filed on Tuesday, August 23." Looks like he may have closed the door on that option - Do you think he filed suit on "Tuesday, August 23." If he didn't, did he lie? (a deliberate false statement?? - horrors - less than the absolute truth, is that transgression sanctionable under the WI code of ethics - or can lawyers play fast and lose with the truth to negotiate a better postition?) I wonder if he even prepared that lawsuit between the 18th and the 23rd? Or maybe he didn't intend to sue at all but instead try a little public rage and post a thread here."
1. He had the right to demand that which he had coming. If you don't like how he demanded it, try doing the right thing without someone having to exert the energy to demand.
2. If people did not ask and finally demand, how would things ever get settled?
3. He may wait until after the day he was going to file, and the law encourages him to wait a little bit to see if an amicable settlement can occur. But you know that... again... Characterizing that as a lie. Fooling some here, maybe. Heck probably folling some here. I have never heard an attorney or judge be upset that a suit was threatened and not brought... Until now.
<< If I find such a coin first, I will buy it. I will then sue Superior Galleries for the difference between what I paid for the replacement coin and what I agreed to pay Superior Galleries for the coin I won at auction, plus any additional costs and/or expenses I incur as a result of Superior Galleries' breach of contract. Regardless of outcome of the lawsuit (though I have no doubt whatsoever how my claim will fare),"
I agree with BP. He will win. You disagree. So what? Can't wait to find out SG will pay money to Beepy? They will.
"I also will post truthful, explicit, negative feedback regarding this transaction on eBay. Such feedback will include the fact that the auction was a sham, that I was deliberately lied to about the transaction by a Superior Galleries representative, and that Superior Galleries refused to honor its contract with me because Superior Galleries felt it was better to screw me over than spend the money necessary to fulfill the contract. Given that lawsuits are public records, I also will post a detailed account of the progress of my lawsuit on any and all coin forum message boards I can find. All accounts I post will be truthful, and thus not very supportive of Superior Galleries' business practices. I leave it to you to determine how these activities will affect Superior Galleries' business reputation. >>"
He has every right to post feedback. Smoe here demand that one leave negative FB for a non-paying bidder as well as make a complaint that is a matter of record.
"With all due respect to Beepy's anger about this unfortunate situation, looks pretty much like a case of legal bludgeoning to me - "
Big deal- you will now grasp at straws.
"Suppose the statements bolded above turn out to be untrue and Beepy's intent is to cause Superior economic harm?"
What happens when we find out they are true?
"And just suppose Beepy loses his "slam dunk case?"
Then they (SG) pays their legals bills, Beeper worked for free. (SG will probably spend $75,000+ on defense)
"What then? - Ever hear of "Malicious Abuse of Process" -"
Yes, but he has a colorable claim here. No abuse of process.
" there's also Intentional Torts such as Interference with Business Relationship,"
Grasping really hard on the straw, eh? Defendant's action must be unjustified. He has ample justification for telling his side of the story. Further he wuld have to know about the relationship and try to interfere. I just don't see him knowing about any specific relationship. And he isn't trying to steal their business. That tort isn't going far.
" maybe others - "
Name them and show where the elements are met on the facts or cut the BS "maybe' this and that. I will cut down your torts as you bring them on.
"Beepy's emails don't present him in the light of a Widow or Orphan who's been screwed over by some malicious, predatory business, they present him as a very sharp individual willing to push the envelope to get his way. Ever represented a lawyer in a Court room? - You got to work hard to present a lawyer as a sympathetic Plaintiff." "
He is going to go pro se. I do not see the problem. Liabilty will be decided by stipulation or motiuon for summary judgment or a similar device. There is no question of unconscionability that is left for the jury; it is equity and the judge alone decides equitible questions.
"I don't know how this will get resolved, or if it ever will, but if you think it ought to be litigated, that's what the Courts are for."
I think SG should buy the coin and send it to him and he can send the payment back and SG will save a lot of legal fees. Unreasonable people end up in court over such matters.
"If you need a $100 case, maybe Beepy could use your "counsel" - I'm certain it would be "wise" - just don't stiff him. "
He is a practicing lawyer and will file his own suit if he feels he must file. I will wait until you need a defense lawyer for your next murder trial.
One other thing, I believe that the case you cite differs in that the risk of mistake is on SG in the case we are discussing whereas in the case cited from Cali, the court found that the defendant (would be SG if applying the law to this case) did not bear the risk of mistake. I think that is dispositive and if not, it certainly distinguishes the cases rendering the case cited irrelevant.
Beepy, You are correct in your statements. As you know the dealing of coins is a business and the only thing that matters in business is the bottom line. This is why some dealers that post on this board are so vile and negative against you. Because you’re rocking the boat and showing in detail what could be the norm for the coin business. You refuse to accept SG terms and want to receive what was contracted at that grade and price, not what SG think you should receive.
It’s Monday so you may receive a e-mail regarding this matter from SG. It not you should take action. 1. Report SG to E-Bay for not delivering on a contract. This will most likely do nothing but if more people did it might. SG clearly broke E-Bays selling policy by selling the same coin at the same time, and not delivering the item auction. E-Bay doesn’t consider the return of funds to the buyer to be acceptable in fulfilling E-Bays contract. 2. Make a Federal case out of this, SG needs to understand that there will be recourse when they dismiss buyers.
Lastly, maybe it’s time for some Federal or State over site of Auction Houses and or coin/dealers?
And Beepy never makes any mistakes in his/her life????
All this stupidity over $150.00? Sure, principal is invloved, but Superior DOES seem to be trying to make amends. Heaven forbid if Beepy gets screwed for $250.00!!! Oh my-stop all life as we know it!
One thing I've learned in life: those who think small-stay small. If you going to waste your time and energy crying over an obvious $150.00 mistake, then you most likely will never succeed beyond marginal means in life.
Too bad I wasn't around this weekend. This is athe stupidest thread I have ever seen!
The coin was sold to Gartneteye on 7/20. And Superior let the auction go on until 7/27, when Beepy supposedly "won" it? To me, that's inexcusable.
I'm sure Superior would have canceled the second auction if they realized that they had accidentally sold the BU to Garneteye. They probably still don't realize that they sold and delivered the wrong coin to Garneteye. That's probably why the BU still appears in their computer inventory and why they thought delivering the coin to Beepy would be no problem. They think the coin is still in stock. They also probably have an extra proof lying around, the coin that they thought they sold to Garneteye.
BTW, perhaps to be fair Garneteye should consider returning his coin to Superior. Not that Superior would demand that, of course.
Edited (for the benefit of those who have not read the entire thread) that Garneteye purchased a coin priced as a proof, when in fact the coin imaged and sold was a BU. Obviously, someone at Superior mixed the two coins up. When the auction closed, the BU was shipped and the proof was probably recorded as sold.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
At this point, I'd love to see Beepy actually pursue this matter in the legal forum and bring it to conclusion. It would give the rest of us some closure. Of course, I think Beepy will not pursue this in the legal forum - it's just puffery...
BTW - does SBGH have a claim against Beepy as a result of this thread?
Whoa! I've been gone over the weekend and a seven-pager starts. I need to print out this thread. Too much to read online!!
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)
<< <i>Edited (for the benefit of those who have not read the entire thread) that Garneteye purchased a coin priced as a proof, when in fact the coin imaged and sold was a BU. Obviously, someone at Superior mixed the two coins up. When the auction closed, the BU was shipped and the proof was probably recorded as sold. >>
And Russ should return all his AH Kennedy's because the auctions he buys from mentions that the coins are "SMS," not "SMS DCAM Accented Hair." If Superior can't figure out whether a coin is BU or Proof, that's their problem.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Not sure why all the harsh words for beepy. While he may or may not have taken this incedent too far, I can understand his anger in the auction firm not fulfilling their end of a contract, regardless of the amount of money or coin involved, maybe it's just the principle involved to him. I once had B&M (now ANR) make a serious error on a consignment of mine, and they handled it quickly and professionally and to my complete satisfaction, which just goes to show that not all auction firms are created equal.
As I've said before, auction firms now clearly spell out like 3 full pages of legal jibberish in their auction catalogs to make the terms crystal clear for the bidder as well as protect their own financial interests and liabilities, yet what recourse does the buyer have when the auction company screws up and then just says "hey pal, here's your money back, now go away"??
In this case, I have looked beyond the price of the coin involved, but rather how the auction firm chose to handle the problem which was their fault to begin with.
Personally, I would have given them more time to find a replacement coin. One would have turned up eventually and all would have been settled.
This reminds me of an "issue" that my brother had with the developer of the real estate development that he bought into. The total at issue was $500, and although my brother was "right", as a lawyer I tried to counsel him that it just wasn't worth getting into a lawsuit over the issue. However, I think that people who are lawyers themselves, or have free access to a lawyer (i.e., my brother uses me "for free"), sometimes things get escalated to a litigation-level sooner than they would have had a lawyer not been involved. Needless to say, I settled my brother's legal issue, but it took a lot of my time, and if he had to pay someone to deal with the matter, I am sure he would have done a cost-benefit analysis and dropped the issue.
But I understand how Beepy must feel.
On another similar matter (but not coin related), I recently purchased a cheap rug at Home Depot for $350. The price tag on the display said $350, but when I got to the register, it rang up at $399. When I asked why the price wasn't $350, they said the sign on the display was a mistake and they forgot to take it down. Well, I spent 5-10 minutes dealing with the manager who immediately said they would reduce the price back down to $350 because that is what the sign said. Was it worth my time for $49? Not really, but I was annoyed and wanted the price as stated. One of the best consequences was that my wife later told me that she was turned on by my defending my right to the $49.
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)
It's sad that some/certain forum members express disagreement on this and other subjects by resorting to being rude, insulting and mean.
This thread has raised some issues which are relevant, interesting and important for many collectors and dealers. Unfortunatley, much of that has been lost amidst the poor behavior on the part of a number of participants.
If you find yourself getting ready to attack someone, rather than reason with or debate them, take a few seconds and consider the possibility that your argument/side might not be so strong or "right" after all.
In the years leading up to my 40th birthday (earlier this year), I have mellowed somewhat. Ten or fifteen years ago, I may have been Beepy, Jr (without the law degree) in my approach to the situation. Over time, I have learned that life is far more enjoyable when you don't sweat the small stuff (apologies for the hackneyed expression). Having a good working or social relationship with as many parties as possible is far better than the alternative.
<< <i>I did not post this thread w/ the intention of cutting and running. I posted it on Fri. night, and have been out of town until late this afternoon. Imaging my surprise to have returned to a 16-page thread, which I haven't even finished reading yet.
WOW!!! I seem to have struck a nerve, huh?
Beepy, I have a serious question for you. When this matter is resolved and the thread dies down, are you planning on becoming a valuable member of this forum? With your obvious gift of your way with words, you should be able to contribute here greatly. You have stirred up the pot quite a bit for youself with your first post. Let's see if you will contribute to our hobby when the matter doesn't center on you. If you don't, then we will have to assume what many members I'm sure are already thinking- that you simply crave attention and are hopelessly in love with the sound of your own voice.
"In the years leading up to my 40th birthday (earlier this year), I have mellowed somewhat. Ten or fifteen years ago, I may have been Beepy, Jr (without the law degree) in my approach to the situation. Over time, I have learned that life is far more enjoyable when you don't sweat the small stuff (apologies for the hackneyed expression). Having a good working or social relationship with as many parties as possible is far better than the alternative."
Yes, sure. Beepy feels perhaps that smoetimes you have to stand for smoething or you will fall for anything. He didn't like the feeling (whether true or not) that he was being lied to. I mean, he seems to feel like he was stiffed- err, RYKed royally.
I am not about to tell him his feelings are not valid. He has every right to feel abused. They left him a NEG HE DID NOT DESERVE. Further, that neg accused him of improper use of feedback. Funny, SG seems the party not properly using feedback. I might sue smoeone that leaves me unwarranted feedback, especially if I have a case as strong as Beepy's appears. I know that smoe people in fla sued a bunch of people over a weaker case just last year. And sometimes an issue needs addressed. In this case, by suing over a paultry few hundred, maybe Beepy feels he will recapture a certain amount of dignity he feels was robbed.
Beepy knows that SG will have to pay a whole bunch more to defend the first filing than this is worth. A reasonable person in SG's shoes simply must weigh that into the calculus of "what is this case worth?"
And, unlike the acg fed case, this will not get kicked out on a 12(b)(6) motion. That means after the first wave, there will still be regular legal bills coming in to SG while Beepy will simply work off steam as part of the hooby and tell himself he is working for the good of the hobby as well as his own interests. That duel motivation may make him put in untold hours while refusing to quit. All the while costing SG 10 grand a month until finally SG says: here's the tree-fiddy.
But hey, it is not my $350 on the line to decide what my reputation is worth.
My rep is worth more money to me than exists. Too bad everyone doesn't value their rep so.
"And Beepy never makes any mistakes in his/her life????"
Ok, so now when you don't want to go through with the deal, just say: you never made any mistakes in your life? And then they should just let you go? No negatives for failing to honor your obligations? I guess those that don't honor their own commitments are just without honor... Sure that is your best defense of SG?
"All this stupidity over $150.00? Sure, principal is invloved, but Superior DOES seem to be trying to make amends. Heaven forbid if Beepy gets screwed for $250.00!!! Oh my-stop all life as we know it!"
Smoehow, it is about $350, and he also believes they lied to him to get rid of him on the phone and left him his first neg. Many people take umbrage at being toyed with, FWIW.
"One thing I've learned in life: those who think small-stay small. If you going to waste your time and energy crying over an obvious $150.00 mistake, then you most likely will never succeed beyond marginal means in life."
Somewhat true, but smoetimes you have to stand up and do smoething without regard to your own narrow monetary cost/benefit and do something that makes you feel good. If not, there would be no coin collectors or prostitutes or books written or volunteers or donations or people writing in this forum... well, you get the drift.
"Too bad I wasn't around this weekend. This is athe stupidest thread I have ever seen!"
Never saw poe-58 and the thread that never ends? That was about less money than this.
They probably still don't realize that they sold and delivered the wrong coin to Garneteye
Which is irrelevant.
That's probably why the BU still appears in their computer inventory and why they thought delivering the coin to Beepy would be no problem. They think the coin is still in stock. They also probably have an extra proof lying around, the coin that they thought they sold to Garneteye.
Who cares? It is SG's problem. Why waste time with the obvious?
BTW, perhaps to be fair Garneteye should consider returning his coin to Superior. Not that Superior would demand that, of course.
I can not think of one single legal or moral reason why he should return the coin unless garneteye doesn't like the coin. His coin was bought and paid for before Beepy's won auction started. So how would that be "fair"?
I can not think of one single legal or moral reason why he should return the coin unless garneteye doesn't like the coin. His coin was bought and paid for before Beepy's won auction started. So how would that be "fair"? >>
I can not think of one single legal or moral reason why he should return the coin unless garneteye doesn't like the coin.
How about a practical one? Garneteye can get one that looks just like it for $15.
How practical is that compared to e.g
Garnet sells it on ebay for 150 rocks and spends 15 on the one not in the slab. Well? Why should garnet be robbed of his benefit of the bargain. $53 or whatever seems a really good bargain under the facts and circumstanes here.
BUT this isn't about our view of practical; garnet owns the coin and he does not have to part with it. If he does, I think can think of much more practical uses for the coin that do not include him taking fifty bucks for it. I don't see that as an interesting or attractive offer.
Why, do you have one? He owns the coin fair and square, and he has the absolute right to the coin.
His right to the coin was perfected before Beepy by about a week. Garnet took possession. What if he already sold it? This is SG's mistake not garnet's.
Stiffy: Like you, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this Beepy/Superior matter. I did have the opportunity to sell Superior a replacement coin last week for $300 when they called me, if I could locate one fast and, frankly make a "top of the bubble" sale, but, I simply did not have one in stock. At that time, I had no idea what this was all about - if I had, I might have asked my 13 year old son, who I am building a complete set of Silver MS70 Commems with, to allow me to sell the coin from his collection (#6 Registry right now) to Superior for $300 - he could have easily replaced it for less than $250 later this year and raised the cash to purchase another Sony video game of his choice with the profit (while doing a favor for Superior in the process)! Incidently, I used to have several in stock earlier this year - they simply became too difficult to sell above $250 (again, all (9) auction sales I have records on this year were hammer prices of $140-$240). I stopped buying the coin (10) auctions ago when I had to pay $220 for the coin at auction and had no chance to make a profit on that purchase after I bought it.
Further, FYI - I believe the PCGS Price Guide is in the midst of a major rework for the benefit of all collectors and dealers -the goal of which is accurate retail pricing for all coins listed. I believe the Silver Commem charts are being reworked at this time - "Knowledge" from our boards, who oversees the Price Guide rework, just mentioned to me that this particular coin will be reflected "around $300" in the Guide once the rework is completed.
I have sold hundreds of "70" graded PCGS Silver Commems in the past year or two and I can tell you the value of the coin in question IMHO is no more than $300 (perhaps $250 absent the "hysteria" generated from this affair). Obviously, the ebay coin can be run to any level folks want it to go to - I think you will agree though that the (9) auction prices realized just before this affair are the more accurate indicator of fair market value.
So, as you see, IMHO, there was not $350 involved in this situation - more like $97 - $147 tops. If you believe this situation (i.e. fighting for the principle) is on par with donating your time to a worthy charity, so be it. Here, Superior made an HONEST MISTAKE and tried to address it by going into the open market to try to buy the coin in question for nearly 2x the winning bid. Given 90 days, I have little doubt Superior would have been successful in locating such a replacement coin for well under $300 (heck - if Paul Song at Superior offers my son, Justin, the new release of "Kindom of Hearts" (on Playstation) when it comes out in about 60 days ($49.95), he would be foolish not to sell the coin to Superior right out of his collection for $250 (there are more than 100 MS70's slabbed already of this coin and about 2 or 3 dozen collectors actively pursuing the MS70's best I can tell) !
So, here is what I suggest to finally resolve this matter- rather than Beepy and his legal counsel meeting Superior on the Beverly Hills Courtroom steps for a protracted jury trial over this $147 (or $350) affair, let's work it out where Beepy and his legal counsel on the one hand, and Paul Song (head of auctions at Superior on the other hand), meet myself and 13 year old Justin on the Beverly Hills "Best Buy" or "Costco" steps. There we can hammer out just what Superior is prepared to buy for Justin in the way of video games to procure his beautiful MS70 Jefferson Dollar (and I will be present to co-sign for Justin since he is still under age). Following the mutually satisfactory three party agreement being executed right there outside best Buy, Beepy can drive off with the Jefferson Commem in hand and Paul Song can field questions from the TV Stations that will be sure to be following this monumental resolution.
Wondercoin.
Edited to add - PS - If all parties agree - we can contact Sony and ask them to consider sponsoring this major settlement involving their video products. Perhaps they might be willing to kick in some Plane Tickets for Beepy and his counsel to fly to Beverly Hills for the exchange as well as a catered lunch for the crowd?
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Superior mis-lists a proof65 "common" date Morgan dollar as MS65.
Buy it now is 150.
(As opposed to listing a mint state coin as a proof, if you hadn't caught the difference here.)
A very excited Garneteye actually sprains his mouse-finger hitting the buy it now.
Superior ships out the coin, somehow the shipping department and quality control missing the error all the way through.
Garneteye is now in possession of a 4k coin at the "rip" price of 150.
Still no "moral" reason for returning the coin?
There would be both a moral and legal issue (reason) if he knew about the mistake before or at the time of the bid... That fact, however, has not emerged to my knowledge, so it is a mere possibility, not a reason yet... SG has not tried to retrieve the coin based on that mistake, has it?
<< <i> There would be both a moral and legal issue (reason) if he knew about the mistake before or at the time of the bid... That fact, however, has not emerged to my knowledge, so it is a mere possibility, not a reason yet... SG has not tried to retrieve the coin based on that mistake, has it? >>
"On or about 7/20/05 I purchased from Superior the coin at a BIN that was so low that I felt that it must be a mistake."
this is a quote from garneteye's first post regarding his purchase of the coin in question.
how now brown cow?
edited to add:
oh yeah, to answer your question, it appears that SG has made no effort at all to retrieve the coin sold to someone who obviously knew it was mistakenly priced and somewhat mis-listed, nor did they have a problem selling it at the hammer price.
Stiffy: Like you, I have no vested interest in the outcome of this Beepy/Superior matter. I did have the opportunity to sell Superior a replacement coin last week for $300 when they called me, if I could locate one fast and, frankly make a "top of the bubble" sale, but, I simply did not have one in stock. At that time, I had no idea what this was all about - if I had, I might have asked my 13 year old son, who I am building a complete set of Silver MS70 Commems with, to allow me to sell the coin from his collection (#6 Registry right now) to Superior for $300 - he could have easily replaced it for less than $250 later this year and raised the cash to purchase another Sony video game of his choice with the profit (while doing a favor for Superior in the process)! Incidently, I used to have several in stock earlier this year - they simply became too difficult to sell above $250 (again, all (9) auction sales I have records on this year were hammer prices of $140-$240). I stopped buying the coin (10) auctions ago when I had to pay $220 for the coin at auction and had no chance to make a profit on that purchase after I bought it."
So if you sell it, you will have a vested interest? BTW, the poe thread was over $50. I guess the pruincipal was different because the seller didn't ask you for a replacement? Anyway, it is beepy's 150 or 350 or whatever. Smoe people kill for much less... It ain't my dough. The fact that you nmor SG can find a coin at $300 kinda tells me the coin may be worth more. I think beepy deserves a coin, not the difference between what one party thinks is FMV.
"Further, FYI - I believe the PCGS Price Guide is in the midst of a major rework for the benefit of all collectors and dealers -the goal of which is accurate retail pricing for all coins listed. I believe the Silver Commem charts are being reworked at this time - "Knowledge" from our boards, who oversees the Price Guide rework, just mentioned to me that this particular coin will be reflected "around $300" in the Guide once the rework is completed."
I just posted it because it was there. Shoulde I have not posted it???? I am aware of the vagaries of price guides, estimates and past sales. They are just not as good as actually replacing the item to tell me what actual replacement will cost. Almost as good? Maybe, but when you have actual replacement value available, it is usually dispositive.
"I have sold hundreds of "70" graded PCGS Silver Commems in the past year or two and I can tell you the value of the coin in question IMHO is no more than $300 (perhaps $250 absent the "hysteria" generated from this affair). Obviously, the ebay coin can be run to any level folks want it to go to - I think you will agree though that the (9) auction prices realized just before this affair are the more accurate indicator of fair market value."
And when the coin can not be replaced, your sales may be the very next best thing to the actual replacement value available, and then might be used because of necessity. Of course, the fact that no coins are readily available for $300 tells us smoething. Gee, I want 1999 silver proof sets for $100. Of course, I may be dreaming I can get them for that price, right?
"So, as you see, IMHO, there was not $350 involved in this situation - more like $97 - $147 tops."
Your opinion is duly noted. It is as meaningless as my opinion here.
"f you believe this situation (i.e. fighting for the principle) is on par with donating your time to a worthy charity, so be it. Here, Superior made an HONEST MISTAKE and tried to address it by going into the open market to try to buy the coin in question for nearly 2x the winning bid. Given 90 days,"
I do not recall thenm asking for 90 days, which is past the feedback time and generally not within ebay protection etc. I do not see why beepy has to wait open ended... Do you? You suggest a time limit. I do not think 90 days is acceptable to beepy, BUT again, it is his call.
" I have little doubt Superior would have been successful in locating such a replacement coin for well under $300 (heck - if Paul Song at Superior offers my son, Justin, the new release of "Kindom of Hearts" (on Playstation) when it comes out in about 60 days ($49.95), he would be foolish not to sell the coin to Superior right out of his collection for $250 (there are more than 100 MS70's slabbed already of this coin and about 2 or 3 dozen collectors actively pursuing the MS70's best I can tell) !"
Do you know what 1999 silver proof sets will be going for in three months?
So how do you know what this coin will be worth tomorrow? Sure you can guess, but that is all an estimate is: an educated guess... It isn't like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.
"So, here is what I suggest to finally resolve this matter- rather than Beepy and his legal counsel meeting Superior on the Beverly Hills Courtroom steps for a protracted jury trial over this $147 (or $350) affair, let's work it out where Beepy and his legal counsel on the one hand, and Paul Song (head of auctions at Superior on the other hand), meet myself and 13 year old Justin on the Beverly Hills "Best Buy" or "Costco" steps. There we can hammer out just what Superior is prepared to buy for Justin in the way of video games to procure his beautiful MS70 Jefferson Dollar (and I will be present to co-sign for Justin since he is still under age). Following the mutually satisfactory three party agreement being executed right there outside best Buy, Beepy can drive off with the Jefferson Commem in hand and Paul Song can field questions from the TV Stations that will be sure to be following this monumental resolution."
Look, I suggested buying an available coin. What makes your solution so different than those advanced so far? Your kid gets a "windfall" off the buying, selling and suffering of others. Hey, I am all for it. Others here abhor a windfall, or even an honest deal if smoeone they don't know gets it... Or so it seems. I didn't create this situation; it happened before any of us knew about it. I just posted stuff everyone else ignored, didn't know or botched in their analysis. I think beepy will only be happy if he gets the coin and an apology. I think he may want it to cost them SO THEY *don't* DO IT AGAIN.
BTW, SG is in breach and left him a neg. I don't know that he would be forced to take the coin if SG tenders one after he files suit. That would nmean that he could stick SG with a $300+ coin that you say is worth $220 or so... But can't be found for $300. I hope this isn't past where SG can negotiate a settlement. Beepy just might want a little blood with his coin. He knows enough law to bring the action... And win. And cost untold $$ to SG in legal bills. WT heck is their problem? A lousey $150 and an apology might have been enough regardless of what he is asking for. He isn't going to be unrerasonable, IMHO. I have not seen him act unreasonably nor make unreasonable demands... Well, you might say he was pushy, but someone has to be or they would just forget about it, don't you think?
BTW, I must point out (again) that it is extremely unlikely that he is going to file in Cali. I would do the logical and cheap thing; file in Wisconsin or whereever he lives and let them try to wiggle off the hook in local court. How much will that cost SG?
Wondercoin. ct thatr
edited to add *don't* as if it was less than obvious to the reader what this writer intended...
"I think beepy will only be happy if he gets the coin and an apology. I think he may want it to cost them SO THEY DO IT AGAIN."
Well, Beepy can demand as part of the meeting/resolution outside the CA Best Buy store that Paul Song apologizes to him - he might go for that. I have no idea why he would want them to "DO IT AGAIN" - I assume that was a typo.
Justin can not make it up to the WISCONSIN Best Buy store until next Summer as he has school. Perhaps the legal case you suggest will be heated up enough by next Summer (and the legal fees so mounted by then on both sides) that a settlement may be imminent? It might even be perfect timing for Justin to deliver his beautiful Jefferson Dollar to the WI Best Buy steps on his Summer vacation - or Paul Song/Superior vounteers to take Justin fishing for a day on the WI lakes, Justin may even just give Paul/Superior his Jefferson Dollar at no charge whatsoever. I'll make sure to personally safeguard this jewel in the meantime, while it all plays out.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Two coin collectors boarded a flight out of Seattle. One sat in the window seat, the other sat in the middle seat. Just before takeoff, an attorney got on and took the aisle seat next to the two collectors.
The attorney kicked off his shoes, wiggled his toes and was settling in when the collector in the window seat said," I think I'll get up and get a coke."
"No problem," said the attorney, "I'll get it for you."
While he was gone, one of the coin collectors picked up the attorney's shoe and spat in it. When he returned with the coke, the other collector said, "That looks good, I think I'll have one too." Again, the attorney obligingly went to fetch it and while he was gone, the other collector picked up the other shoe and spat in it. The attorney returned and they all sat back and enjoyed the flight. As the plane was landing, the attorney slipped his feet into his shoes and knew immediately what had happened.
"How long must this go on?" he asked. "This fighting between our professions? This hatred? This animosity? This spitting in shoes and pissing in cokes?"
"BTW - In my daytime job, I also practice law and to threaten someone over a $160 deal gone sour indicates a waste of a good education - JMHO
Speaking as an attorney I'll go with what Newsmatist said above....all this for $160? "
For most of us, it is over nothing. I don't have a stake. How much are you getting paid to appear in this thread?
Tell me, is it worth your time to read it?
Funny how some protest that it isn't worth the parties' time for $160 or fill in the amount, but somehow their own comment was a paid endorsement or smoething.
How many of you ever do anything that is not a direct economic benefit? Who orders a steak when a hamburger is cheaper? Oh, I see.. to each his own?
Smoehow I do not hear people agreeing that each of us has a right to decide what a PCGS is worth to us.
I wonder what the dynamics of that is. I thought that the value of a coin was between a
If we are taking about your $160, why not just give it to me? I think that is fair. You don't? How dare you tell me what to do with your money. Oh wait, it is beeper's money? Well hey everyone tell him how much it is and where he can spend it. The guy only asked if it was ok for a seller to do certain things. He has no pressing need for legal advice. He is likely in a far better position to assess the strengths and weaknesses as well as the proriety of compromise etc.
I would like to see him sue just to watch the trial. Smoe things are priceless.
However, I am absolutely four-square in favor of a settlement agreeable to BOTH parties. Always have been, always will be.
I think that Wondercoin has offered the most creative and reasonable solutions to this otherwise vexing problem. I think Justin should be brought into the mix.
a.) guess you are 'lucky' it was not a........................wannabe. b.) do you think they'd be singin a different tune if your bid was...........................$600?
Superior mis-lists a proof65 "common" date Morgan dollar as MS65.
Buy it now is 150.
(As opposed to listing a mint state coin as a proof, if you hadn't caught the difference here.)
A very excited Garneteye actually sprains his mouse-finger hitting the buy it now.
Superior ships out the coin, somehow the shipping department and quality control missing the error all the way through.
Garneteye is now in possession of a 4k coin at the "rip" price of 150.
Still no "moral" reason for returning the coin?
4k coin? Where?
I looked this over again and conclude that merely saying that it 'had to be a mistake' is not enough to say he "knew" it was a mistake. (had they said in the description: "We are offering this at $150 buy it now, but the actual BIN said $50, then you have a reason to KNOW [not guess] that a mistake has been made. Further, SG might have avoided the sale and rescinded the transaction, but they didn't catch their mistake. How many years does garnet have to hold onto a coin he has bought and paid for?
Answer: He can flip it.
SG has had ample opportunity and sat on their rights. garnet may have passed up other chances to get the coin but didn't because he relied on the ownership of the coin that SG sold him. He paid, they shipped, delivery tendered and accepted; all done. Undoing such transaction would likely require fraud on the part of garnet, and that just does not seem to be the case.
So, I feel garnet is under no legal obligation on the facts presented, and he really does not have any moral obligation to give it back. It is a thing done. If you want to claim mistake or other equitable remedy, you better make the claim in a timely manner, IMHO. Those who fail to exercise rights often lose them. And, once he owns the coin and the dealer set the price himself, it is unfair to expect him to return it. He got it fair and square unless he cheated.
I think Beepy and the head of customer service at Superior should both convert to Islam, make a hajj to Mecca and pray to Allah for guidance in this matter.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Comments
<< <i>stman, or whoever you are >>
I guess with the "whoever you are" statement you still like to play that because of the profile not open.
What you have just demonstrated is exactly why some folks don't open their profile. You have said yourself in the past on the security aspects
of the Internet. I've dealt with and met in person many dealers and collectors on this board. I'm on many dealers approval lists.
They know who I am. Why isn't my profile open? Heh, mainly because I don't feel like it and never thought about it at the beginning.
But the behavior I've seen on here I have no intent to open it. No secrets, just not every bodies business.
I've stayed out of these flame fests for a long time. Seems some of you dealers like to have gang bangs on collectors here.
That's OK, soon there will be a show and some will be whining how "Tired" they are.
Maybe Beepy should bid on all of Superior's auctions and go "ooops, so sorry, it was a mistake!"
edited to add - don't listen to me, I just ramble..............
The coin was sold to Gartneteye on 7/20. And Superior let the auction go on until 7/27, when Beepy supposedly "won" it? To me, that's inexcusable.
About putting down what you do for a living, I would not have done it, unless it were correspondences within the profession. But heck, that's just me.
Again with uncouth remarks.
Is this just a bad day or are you this way normally?
SG buys the next available MS 70 PCGS Jeff dollar and ships it to BP.
What else is there to "figure out" counselor?
<< <i>Oh - I forgot my point: Let's try and figure out "WHAT'S right" here - meaning the try and solve a problem, not create a bigger problem.
SG buys the next available MS 70 PCGS Jeff dollar and ships it to BP.
What else is there to "figure out" counselor? >>
Ahhh Stiffy, maybe with all of Beeby's ultimatums he may no longer be entitled to that "Relief". Perhaps posting a thread on a public forum with the intent to cause economic harm where the seller has a legitimate right to rescind based on the CA case of Donovan v. RRL Corporation, 26 Cal. 4th 261 (Cal. 2001) (which is pretty close to Beepy's situation) would result in Beepy being liable to Superior - stranger things have happened in litigation. (you'll find a lot more of Donovan on page 9 of this thread). What part of the CA court's ruling don't you understand? This part?
"We conclude that a contract satisfying the statute of frauds arose from defendant's advertisement and plaintiff's tender of the advertised price, but that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact provides a basis for rescinding the contract. Although Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision (e), justifies a reasonable expectation on the part of consumers that an automobile dealer intends that such an advertisement constitute an offer, and that the offer can be accepted by paying the advertised price, this statute does not supplant governing common law principles authorizing rescission of a contract on the ground of mistake. As we shall explain, rescission is warranted here because the evidence establishes that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact was made in good faith, defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, and enforcement of the contract with the erroneous price would be unconscionable. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal."
Also, If you happen to read the emails he wrote to Superior, (which to use his phraseology are somewhat "childish", if not downright "Ugly") particulary the last comment that if they don't satisfy him by Monday 8/22 "Failing that, suit will be filed on Tuesday, August 23." Looks like he may have closed the door on that option - Do you think he filed suit on "Tuesday, August 23." If he didn't, did he lie? (a deliberate false statement??
<< <i>If I find such a coin first, I will buy it. I will then sue Superior Galleries for the difference between what I paid for the replacement coin and what I agreed to pay Superior Galleries for the coin I won at auction, plus any additional costs and/or expenses I incur as a result of Superior Galleries' breach of contract. Regardless of outcome of the lawsuit (though I have no doubt whatsoever how my claim will fare), I also will post truthful, explicit, negative feedback regarding this transaction on eBay. Such feedback will include the fact that the auction was a sham, that I was deliberately lied to about the transaction by a Superior Galleries representative, and that Superior Galleries refused to honor its contract with me because Superior Galleries felt it was better to screw me over than spend the money necessary to fulfill the contract. Given that lawsuits are public records, I also will post a detailed account of the progress of my lawsuit on any and all coin forum message boards I can find. All accounts I post will be truthful, and thus not very supportive of Superior Galleries' business practices. I leave it to you to determine how these activities will affect Superior Galleries' business reputation. >>
With all due respect to Beepy's anger about this unfortunate situation, looks pretty much like a case of legal bludgeoning to me - Suppose the statements bolded above turn out to be untrue and Beepy's intent is to cause Superior economic harm? And just suppose Beepy loses his "slam dunk case? What then? - Ever hear of "Malicious Abuse of Process" - there's also Intentional Torts such as Interference with Business Relationship, maybe others - Beepy's emails don't present him in the light of a Widow or Orphan who's been screwed over by some malicious, predatory business, they present him as a very sharp individual willing to push the envelope to get his way. Ever represented a lawyer in a Court room? - You got to work hard to present a lawyer as a sympathetic Plaintiff.
I don't know how this will get resolved, or if it ever will, but if you think it ought to be litigated, that's what the Courts are for.
If you need a $100 case, maybe Beepy could use your "counsel" - I'm certain it would be "wise" - just don't stiff him.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
SG buys the next available MS 70 PCGS Jeff dollar and ships it to BP.
What else is there to "figure out" counselor? >>
"Ahhh Stiffy, maybe with all of Beeby's ultimatums he may no longer be entitled to that "Relief". Perhaps posting a thread on a public forum with the intent to cause economic harm where the seller has a legitimate right to rescind based on the CA case of Donovan v. RRL Corporation, 26 Cal. 4th 261 (Cal. 2001) (which is pretty close to Beepy's situation) would result in Beepy being liable to Superior - stranger things have happened in litigation. (you'll find a lot more of Donovan on page 9 of this thread). What part of the CA court's ruling don't you understand? This part?"
Ahh [fill in your own demeaning label here] maybe I will not concede that a suit will be maintained in Cali.
I suggest suit in plaintiff's home state and let SG answer. All the above crap is not law in Wisconsin. Why not have SG sue beepy then? Maybe your analysis will hold h2o then.
"We conclude that a contract satisfying the statute of frauds arose from defendant's advertisement and plaintiff's tender of the advertised price, but that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact provides a basis for rescinding the contract. Although Vehicle Code section 11713.1, subdivision (e), justifies a reasonable expectation on the part of consumers that an automobile dealer intends that such an advertisement constitute an offer, and that the offer can be accepted by paying the advertised price, this statute does not supplant governing common law principles authorizing rescission of a contract on the ground of mistake. As we shall explain, rescission is warranted here because the evidence establishes that defendant's unilateral mistake of fact was made in good faith, defendant did not bear the risk of the mistake, and enforcement of the contract with the erroneous price would be unconscionable. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal."
I do not find that case on all fours with the osternsible case at bar. There was no error in price. There was a unilateral mistake of quantity available in one vcase and price in the other. This is a straight up K action. I doubt Cali law would let SG off the hook on your case anyway. I don't know if it is "good" law in Cali still, but I do not believe that law is exported to Wisconsin, where the decisive action will likely take place. Sure, you can say that SG will try to remove it from state court to federal, but there will be no jurisdiction under the facts known. They may try to challenge the jurisdiction of the state court, but with International Shoe and its proogeny, particularly World Wide Volkswagon, you might note that if defendants made an effort to market in Wisconsin, they might be amenable to service there. Even if not, what will they pay to quash the service? That is the reality here. You cannot make Beeper file in Cali, so your analysis is a waste... Unless this goes to trial and choice of laws conflicts occur. But what is the likelihood of trial in this case? I say: NIl. This ain't going to trial, and it seems like you want to try to BS a settlement. ha
"Also, If you happen to read the emails he wrote to Superior, (which to use his phraseology are somewhat "childish", if not downright "Ugly")"
SG first told him that they sent the coin earlier the same day he called. But they didn't do that. You must do equity to get an eqitable remedy, as you may have forgotten. SG has unclean hands here.
"particulary the last comment that if they don't satisfy him by Monday 8/22 "Failing that, suit will be filed on Tuesday, August 23." Looks like he may have closed the door on that option - Do you think he filed suit on "Tuesday, August 23." If he didn't, did he lie? (a deliberate false statement?? - horrors - less than the absolute truth, is that transgression sanctionable under the WI code of ethics - or can lawyers play fast and lose with the truth to negotiate a better postition?) I wonder if he even prepared that lawsuit between the 18th and the 23rd? Or maybe he didn't intend to sue at all but instead try a little public rage and post a thread here."
1. He had the right to demand that which he had coming. If you don't like how he demanded it, try doing the right thing without someone having to exert the energy to demand.
2. If people did not ask and finally demand, how would things ever get settled?
3. He may wait until after the day he was going to file, and the law encourages him to wait a little bit to see if an amicable settlement can occur. But you know that... again... Characterizing that as a lie. Fooling some here, maybe. Heck probably folling some here. I have never heard an attorney or judge be upset that a suit was threatened and not brought... Until now.
<< If I find such a coin first, I will buy it. I will then sue Superior Galleries for the difference between what I paid for the replacement coin and what I agreed to pay Superior Galleries for the coin I won at auction, plus any additional costs and/or expenses I incur as a result of Superior Galleries' breach of contract. Regardless of outcome of the lawsuit (though I have no doubt whatsoever how my claim will fare),"
I agree with BP. He will win. You disagree. So what? Can't wait to find out SG will pay money to Beepy? They will.
"I also will post truthful, explicit, negative feedback regarding this transaction on eBay. Such feedback will include the fact that the auction was a sham, that I was deliberately lied to about the transaction by a Superior Galleries representative, and that Superior Galleries refused to honor its contract with me because Superior Galleries felt it was better to screw me over than spend the money necessary to fulfill the contract. Given that lawsuits are public records, I also will post a detailed account of the progress of my lawsuit on any and all coin forum message boards I can find. All accounts I post will be truthful, and thus not very supportive of Superior Galleries' business practices. I leave it to you to determine how these activities will affect Superior Galleries' business reputation. >>"
He has every right to post feedback. Smoe here demand that one leave negative FB for a non-paying bidder as well as make a complaint that is a matter of record.
"With all due respect to Beepy's anger about this unfortunate situation, looks pretty much like a case of legal bludgeoning to me - "
Big deal- you will now grasp at straws.
"Suppose the statements bolded above turn out to be untrue and Beepy's intent is to cause Superior economic harm?"
What happens when we find out they are true?
"And just suppose Beepy loses his "slam dunk case?"
Then they (SG) pays their legals bills, Beeper worked for free. (SG will probably spend $75,000+ on defense)
"What then? - Ever hear of "Malicious Abuse of Process" -"
Yes, but he has a colorable claim here. No abuse of process.
" there's also Intentional Torts such as Interference with Business Relationship,"
Grasping really hard on the straw, eh? Defendant's action must be unjustified. He has ample justification for telling his side of the story. Further he wuld have to know about the relationship and try to interfere. I just don't see him knowing about any specific relationship. And he isn't trying to steal their business. That tort isn't going far.
" maybe others - "
Name them and show where the elements are met on the facts or cut the BS "maybe' this and that. I will cut down your torts as you bring them on.
"Beepy's emails don't present him in the light of a Widow or Orphan who's been screwed over by some malicious, predatory business, they present him as a very sharp individual willing to push the envelope to get his way. Ever represented a lawyer in a Court room? - You got to work hard to present a lawyer as a sympathetic Plaintiff." "
He is going to go pro se. I do not see the problem. Liabilty will be decided by stipulation or motiuon for summary judgment or a similar device. There is no question of unconscionability that is left for the jury; it is equity and the judge alone decides equitible questions.
"I don't know how this will get resolved, or if it ever will, but if you think it ought to be litigated, that's what the Courts are for."
I think SG should buy the coin and send it to him and he can send the payment back and SG will save a lot of legal fees. Unreasonable people end up in court over such matters.
"If you need a $100 case, maybe Beepy could use your "counsel" - I'm certain it would be "wise" - just don't stiff him. "
He is a practicing lawyer and will file his own suit if he feels he must file. I will wait until you need a defense lawyer for your next murder trial.
You are correct in your statements. As you know the dealing of coins is a business and the only thing that matters in business is the bottom line. This is why some dealers that post on this board are so vile and negative against you. Because you’re rocking the boat and showing in detail what could be the norm for the coin business. You refuse to accept SG terms and want to receive what was contracted at that grade and price, not what SG think you should receive.
It’s Monday so you may receive a e-mail regarding this matter from SG. It not you should take action.
1. Report SG to E-Bay for not delivering on a contract. This will most likely do nothing but if more people did it might. SG clearly broke E-Bays selling policy by selling the same coin at the same time, and not delivering the item auction. E-Bay doesn’t consider the return of funds to the buyer to be acceptable in fulfilling E-Bays contract.
2. Make a Federal case out of this, SG needs to understand that there will be recourse when they dismiss buyers.
Lastly, maybe it’s time for some Federal or State over site of Auction Houses and or coin/dealers?
All this stupidity over $150.00? Sure, principal is invloved, but Superior DOES seem to be trying to make amends. Heaven forbid if Beepy gets screwed for $250.00!!! Oh my-stop all life as we know it!
One thing I've learned in life: those who think small-stay small. If you going to waste your time and energy crying over an obvious $150.00 mistake, then you most likely will never succeed beyond marginal means in life.
Too bad I wasn't around this weekend. This is athe stupidest thread I have ever seen!
I'm sure Superior would have canceled the second auction if they realized that they had accidentally sold the BU to Garneteye. They probably still don't realize that they sold and delivered the wrong coin to Garneteye. That's probably why the BU still appears in their computer inventory and why they thought delivering the coin to Beepy would be no problem. They think the coin is still in stock. They also probably have an extra proof lying around, the coin that they thought they sold to Garneteye.
BTW, perhaps to be fair Garneteye should consider returning his coin to Superior. Not that Superior would demand that, of course.
Edited (for the benefit of those who have not read the entire thread) that Garneteye purchased a coin priced as a proof, when in fact the coin imaged and sold was a BU. Obviously, someone at Superior mixed the two coins up. When the auction closed, the BU was shipped and the proof was probably recorded as sold.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
BTW - does SBGH have a claim against Beepy as a result of this thread?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
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)
<< <i>Edited (for the benefit of those who have not read the entire thread) that Garneteye purchased a coin priced as a proof, when in fact the coin imaged and sold was a BU. Obviously, someone at Superior mixed the two coins up. When the auction closed, the BU was shipped and the proof was probably recorded as sold. >>
And Russ should return all his AH Kennedy's because the auctions he buys from mentions that the coins are "SMS," not "SMS DCAM Accented Hair." If Superior can't figure out whether a coin is BU or Proof, that's their problem.
Speaking as an attorney I'll go with what Newsmatist said above....all this for $160?
Chicolini: Mint? No, no, I no like a mint. Uh - what other flavor you got?
Not sure why all the harsh words for beepy. While he may or may not have taken this incedent too far, I can understand his anger in the auction firm not fulfilling their end of a contract, regardless of the amount of money or coin involved, maybe it's just the principle involved to him. I once had B&M (now ANR) make a serious error on a consignment of mine, and they handled it quickly and professionally and to my complete satisfaction, which just goes to show that not all auction firms are created equal.
As I've said before, auction firms now clearly spell out like 3 full pages of legal jibberish in their auction catalogs to make the terms crystal clear for the bidder as well as protect their own financial interests and liabilities, yet what recourse does the buyer have when the auction company screws up and then just says "hey pal, here's your money back, now go away"??
In this case, I have looked beyond the price of the coin involved, but rather how the auction firm chose to handle the problem which was their fault to begin with.
This reminds me of an "issue" that my brother had with the developer of the real estate development that he bought into. The total at issue was $500, and although my brother was "right", as a lawyer I tried to counsel him that it just wasn't worth getting into a lawsuit over the issue. However, I think that people who are lawyers themselves, or have free access to a lawyer (i.e., my brother uses me "for free"), sometimes things get escalated to a litigation-level sooner than they would have had a lawyer not been involved. Needless to say, I settled my brother's legal issue, but it took a lot of my time, and if he had to pay someone to deal with the matter, I am sure he would have done a cost-benefit analysis and dropped the issue.
But I understand how Beepy must feel.
On another similar matter (but not coin related), I recently purchased a cheap rug at Home Depot for $350. The price tag on the display said $350, but when I got to the register, it rang up at $399. When I asked why the price wasn't $350, they said the sign on the display was a mistake and they forgot to take it down. Well, I spent 5-10 minutes dealing with the manager who immediately said they would reduce the price back down to $350 because that is what the sign said. Was it worth my time for $49? Not really, but I was annoyed and wanted the price as stated. One of the best consequences was that my wife later told me that she was turned on by my defending my right to the $49.
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)
This thread has raised some issues which are relevant, interesting and important for many collectors and dealers. Unfortunatley, much of that has been lost amidst the poor behavior on the part of a number of participants.
If you find yourself getting ready to attack someone, rather than reason with or debate them, take a few seconds and consider the possibility that your argument/side might not be so strong or "right" after all.
<< <i>I did not post this thread w/ the intention of cutting and running. I posted it on Fri. night, and have been out of town until late this afternoon. Imaging my surprise to have returned to a 16-page thread, which I haven't even finished reading yet.
WOW!!! I seem to have struck a nerve, huh?
Beepy, I have a serious question for you. When this matter is resolved and the thread dies down, are you planning on becoming a valuable member of this forum? With your obvious gift of your way with words, you should be able to contribute here greatly. You have stirred up the pot quite a bit for youself with your first post. Let's see if you will contribute to our hobby when the matter doesn't center on you. If you don't, then we will have to assume what many members I'm sure are already thinking- that you simply crave attention and are hopelessly in love with the sound of your own voice.
Yes, sure. Beepy feels perhaps that smoetimes you have to stand for smoething or you will fall for anything. He didn't like the feeling (whether true or not) that he was being lied to. I mean, he seems to feel like he was stiffed- err, RYKed royally.
I am not about to tell him his feelings are not valid. He has every right to feel abused. They left him a NEG HE DID NOT DESERVE. Further, that neg accused him of improper use of feedback. Funny, SG seems the party not properly using feedback. I might sue smoeone that leaves me unwarranted feedback, especially if I have a case as strong as Beepy's appears. I know that smoe people in fla sued a bunch of people over a weaker case just last year. And sometimes an issue needs addressed. In this case, by suing over a paultry few hundred, maybe Beepy feels he will recapture a certain amount of dignity he feels was robbed.
Beepy knows that SG will have to pay a whole bunch more to defend the first filing than this is worth. A reasonable person in SG's shoes simply must weigh that into the calculus of "what is this case worth?"
And, unlike the acg fed case, this will not get kicked out on a 12(b)(6) motion. That means after the first wave, there will still be regular legal bills coming in to SG while Beepy will simply work off steam as part of the hooby and tell himself he is working for the good of the hobby as well as his own interests. That duel motivation may make him put in untold hours while refusing to quit. All the while costing SG 10 grand a month until finally SG says: here's the tree-fiddy.
But hey, it is not my $350 on the line to decide what my reputation is worth.
My rep is worth more money to me than exists. Too bad everyone doesn't value their rep so.
Ok, so now when you don't want to go through with the deal, just say: you never made any mistakes in your life? And then they should just let you go? No negatives for failing to honor your obligations? I guess those that don't honor their own commitments are just without honor... Sure that is your best defense of SG?
"All this stupidity over $150.00? Sure, principal is invloved, but Superior DOES seem to be trying to make amends. Heaven forbid if Beepy gets screwed for $250.00!!! Oh my-stop all life as we know it!"
Smoehow, it is about $350, and he also believes they lied to him to get rid of him on the phone and left him his first neg. Many people take umbrage at being toyed with, FWIW.
"One thing I've learned in life: those who think small-stay small. If you going to waste your time and energy crying over an obvious $150.00 mistake, then you most likely will never succeed beyond marginal means in life."
Somewhat true, but smoetimes you have to stand up and do smoething without regard to your own narrow monetary cost/benefit and do something that makes you feel good. If not, there would be no coin collectors or prostitutes or books written or volunteers or donations or people writing in this forum... well, you get the drift.
"Too bad I wasn't around this weekend. This is athe stupidest thread I have ever seen!"
Never saw poe-58 and the thread that never ends? That was about less money than this.
Woulda coulda shoulda... BUT they didn't do it, did they?
Which is irrelevant.
That's probably why the BU still appears in their computer inventory and why they thought delivering the coin to Beepy would be no problem. They think the coin is still in stock. They also probably have an extra proof lying around, the coin that they thought they sold to Garneteye.
Who cares? It is SG's problem. Why waste time with the obvious?
BTW, perhaps to be fair Garneteye should consider returning his coin to Superior. Not that Superior would demand that, of course.
I can not think of one single legal or moral reason why he should return the coin unless garneteye doesn't like the coin. His coin was bought and paid for before Beepy's won auction started. So how would that be "fair"?
How about a practical one? Garneteye can get one that looks just like it for $15.
<< <i>
I can not think of one single legal or moral reason why he should return the coin unless garneteye doesn't like the coin. His coin was bought and paid for before Beepy's won auction started. So how would that be "fair"? >>
Not one?
397
Superior mis-lists a proof65 "common" date Morgan dollar as MS65.
Buy it now is 150.
(As opposed to listing a mint state coin as a proof, if you hadn't caught the difference here.)
A very excited Garneteye actually sprains his mouse-finger hitting the buy it now.
Superior ships out the coin, somehow the shipping department and quality control missing the error all the way through.
Garneteye is now in possession of a 4k coin at the "rip" price of 150.
Still no "moral" reason for returning the coin?
How about a practical one? Garneteye can get one that looks just like it for $15.
How practical is that compared to e.g
Garnet sells it on ebay for 150 rocks and spends 15 on the one not in the slab. Well? Why should garnet be robbed of his benefit of the bargain. $53 or whatever seems a really good bargain under the facts and circumstanes here.
BUT this isn't about our view of practical; garnet owns the coin and he does not have to part with it. If he does, I think can think of much more practical uses for the coin that do not include him taking fifty bucks for it. I don't see that as an interesting or attractive offer.
Why, do you have one? He owns the coin fair and square, and he has the absolute right to the coin.
His right to the coin was perfected before Beepy by about a week. Garnet took possession. What if he already sold it? This is SG's mistake not garnet's.
<< <i>400 >>
Thanks--- RYK !!! That was needed
Further, FYI - I believe the PCGS Price Guide is in the midst of a major rework for the benefit of all collectors and dealers -the goal of which is accurate retail pricing for all coins listed. I believe the Silver Commem charts are being reworked at this time - "Knowledge" from our boards, who oversees the Price Guide rework, just mentioned to me that this particular coin will be reflected "around $300" in the Guide once the rework is completed.
I have sold hundreds of "70" graded PCGS Silver Commems in the past year or two and I can tell you the value of the coin in question IMHO is no more than $300 (perhaps $250 absent the "hysteria" generated from this affair). Obviously, the ebay coin can be run to any level folks want it to go to - I think you will agree though that the (9) auction prices realized just before this affair are the more accurate indicator of fair market value.
So, as you see, IMHO, there was not $350 involved in this situation - more like $97 - $147 tops. If you believe this situation (i.e. fighting for the principle) is on par with donating your time to a worthy charity, so be it. Here, Superior made an HONEST MISTAKE and tried to address it by going into the open market to try to buy the coin in question for nearly 2x the winning bid. Given 90 days, I have little doubt Superior would have been successful in locating such a replacement coin for well under $300 (heck - if Paul Song at Superior offers my son, Justin, the new release of "Kindom of Hearts" (on Playstation) when it comes out in about 60 days ($49.95), he would be foolish not to sell the coin to Superior right out of his collection for $250 (there are more than 100 MS70's slabbed already of this coin and about 2 or 3 dozen collectors actively pursuing the MS70's best I can tell) !
So, here is what I suggest to finally resolve this matter- rather than Beepy and his legal counsel meeting Superior on the Beverly Hills Courtroom steps for a protracted jury trial over this $147 (or $350) affair, let's work it out where Beepy and his legal counsel on the one hand, and Paul Song (head of auctions at Superior on the other hand), meet myself and 13 year old Justin on the Beverly Hills "Best Buy" or "Costco" steps. There we can hammer out just what Superior is prepared to buy for Justin in the way of video games to procure his beautiful MS70 Jefferson Dollar (and I will be present to co-sign for Justin since he is still under age). Following the mutually satisfactory three party agreement being executed right there outside best Buy, Beepy can drive off with the Jefferson Commem in hand and Paul Song can field questions from the TV Stations that will be sure to be following this monumental resolution.
Wondercoin.
Edited to add - PS - If all parties agree - we can contact Sony and ask them to consider sponsoring this major settlement involving their video products. Perhaps they might be willing to kick in some Plane Tickets for Beepy and his counsel to fly to Beverly Hills for the exchange as well as a catered lunch for the crowd?
Superior mis-lists a proof65 "common" date Morgan dollar as MS65.
Buy it now is 150.
(As opposed to listing a mint state coin as a proof, if you hadn't caught the difference here.)
A very excited Garneteye actually sprains his mouse-finger hitting the buy it now.
Superior ships out the coin, somehow the shipping department and quality control missing the error all the way through.
Garneteye is now in possession of a 4k coin at the "rip" price of 150.
Still no "moral" reason for returning the coin?
There would be both a moral and legal issue (reason) if he knew about the mistake before or at the time of the bid... That fact, however, has not emerged to my knowledge, so it is a mere possibility, not a reason yet... SG has not tried to retrieve the coin based on that mistake, has it?
<< <i>
There would be both a moral and legal issue (reason) if he knew about the mistake before or at the time of the bid... That fact, however, has not emerged to my knowledge, so it is a mere possibility, not a reason yet... SG has not tried to retrieve the coin based on that mistake, has it? >>
"On or about 7/20/05 I purchased from Superior the coin at a BIN that was so low that I felt that it must be a mistake."
this is a quote from garneteye's first post regarding his purchase of the coin in question.
how now brown cow?
edited to add:
oh yeah, to answer your question, it appears that SG has made no effort at all to retrieve the coin sold to someone who obviously knew it was mistakenly priced and somewhat mis-listed, nor did they have a problem selling it at the hammer price.
So if you sell it, you will have a vested interest? BTW, the poe thread was over $50. I guess the pruincipal was different because the seller didn't ask you for a replacement? Anyway, it is beepy's 150 or 350 or whatever. Smoe people kill for much less... It ain't my dough. The fact that you nmor SG can find a coin at $300 kinda tells me the coin may be worth more. I think beepy deserves a coin, not the difference between what one party thinks is FMV.
"Further, FYI - I believe the PCGS Price Guide is in the midst of a major rework for the benefit of all collectors and dealers -the goal of which is accurate retail pricing for all coins listed. I believe the Silver Commem charts are being reworked at this time - "Knowledge" from our boards, who oversees the Price Guide rework, just mentioned to me that this particular coin will be reflected "around $300" in the Guide once the rework is completed."
I just posted it because it was there. Shoulde I have not posted it???? I am aware of the vagaries of price guides, estimates and past sales. They are just not as good as actually replacing the item to tell me what actual replacement will cost. Almost as good? Maybe, but when you have actual replacement value available, it is usually dispositive.
"I have sold hundreds of "70" graded PCGS Silver Commems in the past year or two and I can tell you the value of the coin in question IMHO is no more than $300 (perhaps $250 absent the "hysteria" generated from this affair). Obviously, the ebay coin can be run to any level folks want it to go to - I think you will agree though that the (9) auction prices realized just before this affair are the more accurate indicator of fair market value."
And when the coin can not be replaced, your sales may be the very next best thing to the actual replacement value available, and then might be used because of necessity. Of course, the fact that no coins are readily available for $300 tells us smoething. Gee, I want 1999 silver proof sets for $100. Of course, I may be dreaming I can get them for that price, right?
"So, as you see, IMHO, there was not $350 involved in this situation - more like $97 - $147 tops."
Your opinion is duly noted. It is as meaningless as my opinion here.
"f you believe this situation (i.e. fighting for the principle) is on par with donating your time to a worthy charity, so be it. Here, Superior made an HONEST MISTAKE and tried to address it by going into the open market to try to buy the coin in question for nearly 2x the winning bid. Given 90 days,"
I do not recall thenm asking for 90 days, which is past the feedback time and generally not within ebay protection etc. I do not see why beepy has to wait open ended... Do you? You suggest a time limit. I do not think 90 days is acceptable to beepy, BUT again, it is his call.
" I have little doubt Superior would have been successful in locating such a replacement coin for well under $300 (heck - if Paul Song at Superior offers my son, Justin, the new release of "Kindom of Hearts" (on Playstation) when it comes out in about 60 days ($49.95), he would be foolish not to sell the coin to Superior right out of his collection for $250 (there are more than 100 MS70's slabbed already of this coin and about 2 or 3 dozen collectors actively pursuing the MS70's best I can tell) !"
Do you know what 1999 silver proof sets will be going for in three months?
So how do you know what this coin will be worth tomorrow? Sure you can guess, but that is all an estimate is: an educated guess... It isn't like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.
"So, here is what I suggest to finally resolve this matter- rather than Beepy and his legal counsel meeting Superior on the Beverly Hills Courtroom steps for a protracted jury trial over this $147 (or $350) affair, let's work it out where Beepy and his legal counsel on the one hand, and Paul Song (head of auctions at Superior on the other hand), meet myself and 13 year old Justin on the Beverly Hills "Best Buy" or "Costco" steps. There we can hammer out just what Superior is prepared to buy for Justin in the way of video games to procure his beautiful MS70 Jefferson Dollar (and I will be present to co-sign for Justin since he is still under age). Following the mutually satisfactory three party agreement being executed right there outside best Buy, Beepy can drive off with the Jefferson Commem in hand and Paul Song can field questions from the TV Stations that will be sure to be following this monumental resolution."
Look, I suggested buying an available coin. What makes your solution so different than those advanced so far? Your kid gets a "windfall" off the buying, selling and suffering of others. Hey, I am all for it. Others here abhor a windfall, or even an honest deal if smoeone they don't know gets it... Or so it seems. I didn't create this situation; it happened before any of us knew about it. I just posted stuff everyone else ignored, didn't know or botched in their analysis. I think beepy will only be happy if he gets the coin and an apology. I think he may want it to cost them SO THEY *don't* DO IT AGAIN.
BTW, SG is in breach and left him a neg. I don't know that he would be forced to take the coin if SG tenders one after he files suit. That would nmean that he could stick SG with a $300+ coin that you say is worth $220 or so... But can't be found for $300. I hope this isn't past where SG can negotiate a settlement. Beepy just might want a little blood with his coin. He knows enough law to bring the action... And win. And cost untold $$ to SG in legal bills. WT heck is their problem? A lousey $150 and an apology might have been enough regardless of what he is asking for. He isn't going to be unrerasonable, IMHO. I have not seen him act unreasonably nor make unreasonable demands... Well, you might say he was pushy, but someone has to be or they would just forget about it, don't you think?
BTW, I must point out (again) that it is extremely unlikely that he is going to file in Cali. I would do the logical and cheap thing; file in Wisconsin or whereever he lives and let them try to wiggle off the hook in local court. How much will that cost SG?
Wondercoin.
ct thatr
edited to add *don't* as if it was less than obvious to the reader what this writer intended...
<< <i>The best parts of this thread are the lawyer jokes. Let's have some more. >>
Sad, but true
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Well, Beepy can demand as part of the meeting/resolution outside the CA Best Buy store that Paul Song apologizes to him - he might go for that. I have no idea why he would want them to "DO IT AGAIN" - I assume that was a typo.
Justin can not make it up to the WISCONSIN Best Buy store until next Summer as he has school. Perhaps the legal case you suggest will be heated up enough by next Summer (and the legal fees so mounted by then on both sides) that a settlement may be imminent? It might even be perfect timing for Justin to deliver his beautiful Jefferson Dollar to the WI Best Buy steps on his Summer vacation - or Paul Song/Superior vounteers to take Justin fishing for a day on the WI lakes, Justin may even just give Paul/Superior his Jefferson Dollar at no charge whatsoever. I'll make sure to personally safeguard this jewel in the meantime, while it all plays out.
Wondercoin
A: You take off your shoes before you jump on a trampoline.
The attorney kicked off his shoes, wiggled his toes and was settling in when the collector in the window seat said," I think I'll get up and get a coke."
"No problem," said the attorney, "I'll get it for you."
While he was gone, one of the coin collectors picked up the attorney's shoe and spat in it.
When he returned with the coke, the other collector said, "That looks good, I think I'll have one too."
Again, the attorney obligingly went to fetch it and while he was gone, the other collector picked up the other shoe and spat in it. The attorney returned and they all sat back and enjoyed the flight. As the plane was landing, the attorney slipped his feet into his shoes and knew immediately what had happened.
"How long must this go on?" he asked. "This fighting between our professions? This hatred? This animosity? This spitting in shoes and pissing in cokes?"
Speaking as an attorney I'll go with what Newsmatist said above....all this for $160? "
For most of us, it is over nothing. I don't have a stake. How much are you getting paid to appear in this thread?
Tell me, is it worth your time to read it?
Funny how some protest that it isn't worth the parties' time for $160 or fill in the amount, but somehow their own comment was a paid endorsement or smoething.
How many of you ever do anything that is not a direct economic benefit? Who orders a steak when a hamburger is cheaper? Oh, I see.. to each his own?
Smoehow I do not hear people agreeing that each of us has a right to decide what a PCGS is worth to us.
I wonder what the dynamics of that is. I thought that the value of a coin was between a
If we are taking about your $160, why not just give it to me? I think that is fair. You don't? How dare you tell me what to do with your money. Oh wait, it is beeper's money? Well hey everyone tell him how much it is and where he can spend it. The guy only asked if it was ok for a seller to do certain things. He has no pressing need for legal advice. He is likely in a far better position to assess the strengths and weaknesses as well as the proriety of compromise etc.
I would like to see him sue just to watch the trial. Smoe things are priceless.
However, I am absolutely four-square in favor of a settlement agreeable to BOTH parties. Always have been, always will be.
b.) do you think they'd be singin a different tune if your bid was...........................$600?
Answer: There are skid marks in front of the skunk.
Superior mis-lists a proof65 "common" date Morgan dollar as MS65.
Buy it now is 150.
(As opposed to listing a mint state coin as a proof, if you hadn't caught the difference here.)
A very excited Garneteye actually sprains his mouse-finger hitting the buy it now.
Superior ships out the coin, somehow the shipping department and quality control missing the error all the way through.
Garneteye is now in possession of a 4k coin at the "rip" price of 150.
Still no "moral" reason for returning the coin?
4k coin? Where?
I looked this over again and conclude that merely saying that it 'had to be a mistake' is not enough to say he "knew" it was a mistake. (had they said in the description: "We are offering this at $150 buy it now, but the actual BIN said $50, then you have a reason to KNOW [not guess] that a mistake has been made. Further, SG might have avoided the sale and rescinded the transaction, but they didn't catch their mistake. How many years does garnet have to hold onto a coin he has bought and paid for?
Answer: He can flip it.
SG has had ample opportunity and sat on their rights. garnet may have passed up other chances to get the coin but didn't because he relied on the ownership of the coin that SG sold him. He paid, they shipped, delivery tendered and accepted; all done. Undoing such transaction would likely require fraud on the part of garnet, and that just does not seem to be the case.
So, I feel garnet is under no legal obligation on the facts presented, and he really does not have any moral obligation to give it back. It is a thing done. If you want to claim mistake or other equitable remedy, you better make the claim in a timely manner, IMHO. Those who fail to exercise rights often lose them. And, once he owns the coin and the dealer set the price himself, it is unfair to expect him to return it. He got it fair and square unless he cheated.
Are you a one-trick pony? You have 80 posts, and I would guess that half to two-thirds are related to the Beepy situation. Shades of Catfish.
Hmmmm - only 80 posts old and fluent in Smoe?
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I lurked a while... like you are supposed to. This isn't an alt id.