Another ethics question...

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Let's say a little old widow wants to sell a collection of rare numismatic-related materials. A museum expresses interest in the pieces, but in the process of negotiating a price a nearby dealer catches wind of the situation and takes the time to go to the widows house and make her an offer substantially lower than the price range suggested by the museum (but with the incentive of an immediate cash payment). The widow does sell to this dealer. The museum is left with nothing.

Do you believe the dealer's actions were acceptable?

DoubleGoldEagles1

As long as the buyer didnt 'hoodwink' the widow, I think it is perfectly fine. If the buyer truly had a meeting of the minds if you will, and explained that, although the coins were being bought for less than what the top dollar buyers would pay, but she would be selling them to a good home, that is great...you know, the widow may understand that the deceased loved the coins for not only their monetary value...


my 2 cents

JCMhouston

Nope, well not unless you are a lawyer or politician.

Would both of the honest lawyers please accept my apology in advance.

WinPitcher

NO


Steve

DJCoinz

Depends on whether the museums price was above normal or not. In most cases the answer would be no.

MrEureka

The widow does sell to this dealer. The museum is left with nothing.

Do you believe the dealer's actions were acceptable?

That's like asking if it's "acceptable" for your star pitcher to throw a no-hitter.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>Depends on whether the museums price was above normal or not. In most cases the answer would be no. >>


The price offered by the museum would be very fair. The dealer would have severely underpaid for the items.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>The widow does sell to this dealer. The museum is left with nothing.

Do you believe the dealer's actions were acceptable?

That's like asking if it's "acceptable" for your star pitcher to throw a no-hitter. >>



I find that analogy rather unapplicable to this situation.

If the dealer had ripped off the widow, would you still consider it acceptable?

storm888

Low-end ethics.

BUT, the terms of the dealer better appealed to the seller
than did those terms academically outlined by the museum.

Is the conduct of the dealer actionable at law?

Tortious interference, in the common law of tort, occurs when a person intentionally damages the plaintiff's contractual or other business relationships. This tort is broadly divided into two categories, one specific to contractual relationships (irrespective of whether they involve business), and the other specific to business relationships or activities (irrespective of whether they involve a contract).

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor convinces a party to breach the contract against the plaintiff, or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.

Tortious interference with business relationships occurs where the tortfeasor acts to prevent the plaintiff from successfully establishing or maintaining business relationships.

The tort was first described in the case of Keeble v. Hickeringill, (1707) 103 Eng. Rep. 1127, styled as a "trespass on the case". In that case, the defendant had used a shotgun to drive ducks away from a pond that the plaintiff had built for the purpose of capturing ducks. Although the ducks had not yet been captured, the Justice Holt wrote for the court that "where a violent or malicious act is done to a man's occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, there an action lies in all cases." The court noted that the defendant would have the right to draw away ducks to a pond of his own, raising as a comparison a 1410 case in which the court deemed that no cause of action would lie where a schoolmaster opened a new school that drew students away from an old school.

seatedcoins

The seller made the decision with what appears to be all the info needed. Why would it be unethical? This isn't the case where a dealer tries to rip off a seller who is uneducated. She has two offers that have been made. She chose the one in which she could get payment sooner.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

<< <i>The seller made the decision with what appears to be all the info needed. Why would it be unethical? This isn't the case where a dealer tries to rip off a seller who is uneducated. She has two offers that have been made. She chose the one in which she could get payment sooner. >>



The widow is uneducated.

The museum is still negotiating an offer, but the prices being discussed are substantially higher.

What if the dealer had applied a substantial amount of pressure for the widow to sell?


I'm not trying to take a side, just trying to explain further the scenario I had in my head.

storm888

"What if the dealer had applied a substantial amount of pressure for the widow to sell? "

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Simply saying, "Lady, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush; here, take the money now,"
is not substantial pressure to an educated/sophisticated person. Depending on how "uneducated"
the lady is, the same statement could be argued to be "pressure."

Short of threatening harm to her, there is great latitude in the process of convincing the lady.

If I was the museum, depending on how much effort I had put into developing my relationship
with the lady, I would likely sue the interloping dealer.

The lady might have an equity claim against the dealer if she could show she was paid substantially
less than the items were worth AND the she was BOTH unsophisticated and under some kind of duress.
I don't see the duress clearly, but some crackpot judge might.

The "ethics" question is begged by trying to define a competitive, fair and free marketplace. The
dealer snaked the museum's fish, but if the museum had acted prudently and quickly their loss
could have been avoided. The curator/buyer could have simply issued a substantial deposit against
a sum to be finalized later.

At worst, I fall back to my original view that the dealer exhibited "low-end ethics."

TwoSides2aCoin

The widow has cash in hand and that's most important in this story.

Bochiman

Is she in complete command of her faculties or is she a bit past the "old and not thinking well" stage?
If that latter, then someone should protect her from herself and the dealer. He might have doubletalked her quite a bit, confused her, and got the deal.

If she is, and she didn't go back to the museum with the update on the dealer to see if they could do something, then she is not that smart nor moral herself, imho....as long as the talks with the museum were congenial and went well.