<< <i>The difference is there was a meeting of the minds in those instances. Once the company immediately declared it a [rather obvious, I might add] clerical mistake, there was no deal. >>
Not picking sides, just trying to understand this statement.
There was a meeting of the minds...THE PHONE CALL TO ORDER THE COIN. A little hard to declare a clerical mistake AFTER THE TRANSACTION TAKES PLACE (money changed hands) AND THEY SHIPPED THE COIN OUT...there WAS A DEAL and IT HAPPENED. The deal happened when they accepted the money and shipped the coin.
Just my thoughts on it. It's like calling a DO-OVER when something is DONE. >>
I do agree that there was a deal made when money and merchandise changed hands. I personally would not want to be on either end of this type of transaction though.
Thanks Ron , this one is a little different though im sure you agree , this customer has paid , been given his item and the deal done. Its mentioned if he is to be believed he was away from coins for some 30 years too , it's believeable he didnt know the real value if thats true.
<< <i>Why didn't the price issue come up when stating "the price is firm"? At that point, don't most sellers know what they have into the coin or check on it at that point (I don't sell often, and am not a dealer, so I am just speculating here....based on what I do or would do....please correct me if you are a dealer at that assumption is incorrect). >>
I would suspect if the business is big enough, some of the employees very likely may not be "coin people" and only understand what's listed on the website or the label on the holder. Of course the seller should make every effort to avoid such errors, but really- is it reasonable to expect that they won't happen anyway? Another scenario...
You want to liquidate your collection and decide to set up at a show. Your wife comes along to help you. While you're on a bathroom break, she sells a coin out of your case marked $1,500- one you actually intended to price at $15,000. Once you get back from the can, she tells you about the sale. Of course you're upset, but then, she points out the guy she sold the coin to across the aisle. What do you do?
So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
(edited to correct pricing and date error I had) Coin in question: 1900-O 50c MS 63 - $4000 MS64 - $7000 MS64+ - $8500 MS65 - $14500 MS65+ - $18500
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)? Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $7000? We always here that the guides are inflated for most series, right?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value.
<< <i>Why didn't the price issue come up when stating "the price is firm"? At that point, don't most sellers know what they have into the coin or check on it at that point (I don't sell often, and am not a dealer, so I am just speculating here....based on what I do or would do....please correct me if you are a dealer at that assumption is incorrect). >>
I would suspect if the business is big enough, some of the employees very likely may not be "coin people" and only understand what's listed on the website or the label on the holder. Of course the seller should make every effort to avoid such errors, but really- is it reasonable to expect that they won't happen anyway? Another scenario...
You want to liquidate your collection and decide to set up at a show. Your wife comes along to help you. While you're on a bathroom break, she sells a coin out of your case marked $1,500- one you actually intended to price at $15,000. Once you get back from the can, she tells you about the sale. Of course you're upset, but then, she points out the guy she sold the coin to across the aisle. What do you do? >>
It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee?
In your situation, my wife and I would be having a few words first, before any other action Also, again, a lot of how things are handled is in how people are approached.....I wonder how, if the story is true, the SB rep approached the situation??? buyer
Added: In your situation, I think you would be hardpressed to realistically be able to try to pull legalities out. Your wife was your representative. You gave her rights to sell the coins. You priced them. Buyer paid you. Deal was made. Coin is out of your hands and in the buyer's hands. And, haven't many people said that once the goods are shipped, they are the responsibility of the buyer and not the seller?
Again, I know what I would do, but I really don't see anyone holding any responsibility to the seller here. And, I really disagree with hanging up on people, even if frustrated. State you will cal back again after discussing it internally. Hang up on me or my wife, and you really won't be getting what you want.
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not? >>
Im not a coin dealer , i dont go to shows , i dont have a wife ...so...have you no answer to your own question ? I dont have all night for your deflections. If i sold a coin too cheap , more fool me , and i move on.
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)? Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
Well you used the wrong date to start with it was a 1900 O and PCGS pice guide has it at $14,500 at MS65
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)? Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)? Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
Well you used the wrong date to start with it was a 1900 O and PCGS pice guide has it at $14,500 at MS65 >>
Ah, thank you. Dry eyes and eye problems tonight, so I am not seeing that well. Appreciate the correct.
<< <i>I'll answer it. I'd marry smarter the next time. >>
That doesn't really answer it. But you knew that.
<< <i>And if I were SB, I'd be disciplining whoever priced the coin. >>
I would imagine the topic was discussed. >>
OK, fair enough I'll answer it for real now.
What I did would depend on how hard it would be to eat the loss. It's relative, $15K to me may seem like $15 to a minimum wage worker. I too like the previous poster was raised to be accountable for my actions and pay for my mistakes. I would be embarrassed to try to back out of the deal and would endure severe pain to avoid that. If the mistake was going to cause real hardship financially I would probably try to undo it- but I mean real hardship and there is no way on God's green Earth $13,500 is going to impact SB at all. It's a cheap price to pay for integrity.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And now, if you'll indulge me another question, do you think it's possible for someone to A) have integrity and hold a position that's different from your own on this topic?
<< <i>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And now, if you'll indulge me another question, do you think it's possible for someone to A) have integrity and hold a position that's different from your own on this topic? >>
I would think so, too. I don't think one party approaching the other after a "done deal" to confess to having made an error has any necessary implications involving integrity. And depending on the circumstances, I can see the other party either agreeing or not to the undoing of the deal, again, with no necessary integrity implications.
A very fishy story...it just seems very unlikely that SB would make such a mistake. If it is true they might want to check the responsibilities of their employees, how they are shared and their system of internal controls...'cause this sounds like a novice mistake that was not caught by a manager.
That said, it might seem like a very logical mistake but I think I know what the guy is trying to say/do here. By making it sound like he, despite being a long-time collector, does not know te series he implies that he did not realize they coin was underpriced by a huge amount. I wonder how that will workout in a possible lawsuit.
Another point that will be important, regardless of error by SB is the question when a sale is completed as per the contract. Viewing it in black and white:
1) customer inquiries about a coin and decides to purchase it 2) invoice is sent to customer, who pays 3) coin is sent, express mail, with the error being is discovered while the coin is in transit
I would presume that a jury will conclude that despite the fact that the coin was shipped and paid for the collector that purchases a coin of this price would know of its true value...making it unlikely that he will win.
Question remains if ownership had already transferred, I wonder if that would have any influence.
<< <i>By making it sound like he, despite being a long-time collector, does not know te series... >>
This is a common theme here- the collector who is an expert who knows more than the dealers he disdains when that designation suits him and an innocent babe in the woods who needs protection from the dealer wolves when that's more in his favor.
A lot easier when you get to choose which side of the fence you're on, as the opportunity presents itself...
<< <i>Question remains if ownership had already transferred, I wonder if that would have any influence. >>
Who takes the loss if the item never shows up in the mail? I'll bet not the buyer.
I'm not sure of the state law of NY, or Louisiana, but I'll offer my two cents. First, the buyer is not a crook and did nothing illegal. If we are to believe it, Stacks misrepresented the coin. It is not fraud, either civil or criminal. If that is a sales receipt in the listing, then it is likely a contract, IMO, unless the fine print says otherwise, and I don't know if it does.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value.
The red font on that listing makes my eyes bleed. God! What an awful color and what a rant.
So, he falls in love with said coin and purchases it on April 30. Wife loves the coin as well. SB calls and tells buyer a mistake has been made and they offer him a $1,000 bucks for his time and expenses (whatever those are). Wife tells SB to go pound sand, she likes the coin and she is keeping it. Coin arrives May 3 and on May 7 the coin is for sale on feebay with red bleeding font all over it and the endless rant to boot. Am I missing something here? I thought he and wife loved the coin, so why are they in such a rush to sell it?
<< <i>So, he falls in love with said coin and purchases it on April 30. Wife loves the coin as well. SB calls and tells buyer a mistake has been made and they offer him a $1,000 bucks for his time and expenses (whatever those are). Wife tells SB to go pound sand, she likes the coin and she is keeping it. Coin arrives May 3 and on May 7 the coin is for sale on feebay with red bleeding font all over it and the endless rant to boot. Am I missing something here? I thought he and wife loved the coin, so why are they in such a rush to sell it? >>
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to notice that. Nothing to see here... move along, folks.
The buyer should be returning the coin and taking the generous offer of the $1000.
No reasonable collector would think the seller was really wanting to sell this coin so cheap. Regardless of the price guide you look at, this is clearly a five-figure coin and any collector, regardless of their background, could easily figure that out in a couple of minutes.
That said, I'm sure many collectors here would also try to capitalize on such a mistake. But most of those collectors would also know it was likely a mistake from the start and if the seller later tried to correct the mistake in a timely manner, as seems to be the case here, I'm sure most collectors would happily just take the $1000 of free money and return the coin.
Unfortunately, if the buyer wants to continue to be a jerk about it, I'd bet he'll get to keep the coin or will get a better offer than $1000. It would probably cost more in attorneys' fees for the seller to try to recover the coin than was lost in this mistake and even if they were willing to spend the money to fight, winning such as case isn't a sure thing.
<< <i>I'm not sure of the state law of NY, or Louisiana, but I'll offer my two cents. First, the buyer is not a crook and did nothing illegal. If we are to believe it, Stacks misrepresented the coin. It is not fraud, either civil or criminal. If that is a sales receipt in the listing, then it is likely a contract, IMO, unless the fine print says otherwise, and I don't know if it does.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value. >>
Years ago, I cross shipped coins to two buyers. One of the coins was expensive and rare, the other what Laura would call "dreck". Fortunately, I was bailed out when the buyers agreed to ship the proper coins to each other, and accept a small 'gift' from me in exchange. For a few days, I was holding my breath, but all turned out okay in the long run.
Just curious, in the example of this Stacks-Bowers event, would a disclaimer in the seller's terms that says, "Title transfers to buyer at the time of mailing..." change any of the legalities above?
"Giving away an MS-65 $20 St. Gaudens to everyone logged in when I make my 10,000th post..."
Unless this individual holds mistaken moral views, he is without integrity as far as I'm concerned. The right thing (that a person with integrity would do) would be to return the coin and accept the generous 1K reward that SB offered him.
This person further goes on to explain how he is dying in an attempt to garner sympathy with the reader, another sad illustration of just how morally bankrupt this individual is. Not a person I would ever want to do business with.
Do you think he might need the money he could get from selling this coin to buy medicine? Where morals are concerned, is everything necessarily black and white? Just throwin' it out there.
<< <i>Do you think he might need the money he could get from selling this coin to buy medicine? Where morals are concerned, is everything necessarily black and white? Just throwin' it out there. >>
Interesting point, but I think in this case it is not the same as an unemployed steel worker stealing a loaf of bread and lunchmeat from the neighborhood quicky mart to feed his four kids. If he's buying coins I doubt he needs money for his meds.
I've seen or been part of this scenario a few times over the years. It NEVER fails to amaze me how some will try to take advantage of an HONEST mistake. The recipient feels he won the lottery and he isn't going to give it back. Small minded to even consider keeping it.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
If it is their mistake $1000 isn't enough. They should at least offer something in the range of an auctions house buyer premium... 15% to 25% of what they say it is worth.
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass.
<< <i>I'm not sure of the state law of NY, or Louisiana, but I'll offer my two cents. First, the buyer is not a crook and did nothing illegal. If we are to believe it, Stacks misrepresented the coin. It is not fraud, either civil or criminal. If that is a sales receipt in the listing, then it is likely a contract, IMO, unless the fine print says otherwise, and I don't know if it does.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value. >>
Years ago, I cross shipped coins to two buyers. One of the coins was expensive and rare, the other what Laura would call "dreck". Fortunately, I was bailed out when the buyers agreed to ship the proper coins to each other, and accept a small 'gift' from me in exchange. For a few days, I was holding my breath, but all turned out okay in the long run.
Just curious, in the example of this Stacks-Bowers event, would a disclaimer in the seller's terms that says, "Title transfers to buyer at the time of mailing..." change any of the legalities above? >>
Your situation was one of mutual mistake, and it is very similar to a famous case, called the "Peerless" case involving shiploads of grain. If Title transfers at the time of mailing, that would benefit the buyer, but that is how I would view the matter in any event, absent language in Stack's agreements.
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements: 1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not? >>
I would opt to stand by my imaginary wife as I already do with my live-in lover of whom we raise three children together. We have to stand by one another in familial decisions and I would also like to believe in business decisions. It was her sale, my error, and the customer's delight to "ripping me". I would also suggest that her hair and nail fund be cut for the next 7 years. *grin*
IMO the auction was nothing more than a way for this guy to obtain some free opinions from the clowns buying on ebay. My guess is that he got the info he was after and then ended the listing.
Now, TDN stated
<< <i>There is no Santa Claus in numismatics - sellers don't sell certified classic coins for 10 cents on the dollar. It was clearly a clerical error and he should have pointed it out to them in the beginning. >>
earlier in this thread, page 2 I believe.
I beg to differ, there IS a Santa Claus in numismatics because many dealers buy or attempt to buy coins for 10 cents on the dollar. Santa's restricts himself to one side of the table though.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is there was a meeting of the minds in those instances. Once the company immediately declared it a [rather obvious, I might add] clerical mistake, there was no deal. >>
Not picking sides, just trying to understand this statement.
There was a meeting of the minds...THE PHONE CALL TO ORDER THE COIN.
A little hard to declare a clerical mistake AFTER THE TRANSACTION TAKES PLACE (money changed hands) AND THEY SHIPPED THE COIN OUT...there WAS A DEAL and IT HAPPENED. The deal happened when they accepted the money and shipped the coin.
Just my thoughts on it. It's like calling a DO-OVER when something is DONE. >>
I do agree that there was a deal made when money and merchandise changed hands. I personally would not want to be on either end of this type of transaction though.
<< <i>Why didn't the price issue come up when stating "the price is firm"? At that point, don't most sellers know what they have into the coin or check on it at that point (I don't sell often, and am not a dealer, so I am just speculating here....based on what I do or would do....please correct me if you are a dealer at that assumption is incorrect). >>
I would suspect if the business is big enough, some of the employees very likely may not be "coin people" and only understand what's listed on the website or the label on the holder. Of course the seller should make every effort to avoid such errors, but really- is it reasonable to expect that they won't happen anyway? Another scenario...
You want to liquidate your collection and decide to set up at a show. Your wife comes along to help you. While you're on a bathroom break, she sells a coin out of your case marked $1,500- one you actually intended to price at $15,000. Once you get back from the can, she tells you about the sale. Of course you're upset, but then, she points out the guy she sold the coin to across the aisle. What do you do?
(edited to correct pricing and date error I had)
Coin in question: 1900-O 50c
MS 63 - $4000
MS64 - $7000
MS64+ - $8500
MS65 - $14500
MS65+ - $18500
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)?
Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $7000? We always here that the guides are inflated for most series, right?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>Why didn't the price issue come up when stating "the price is firm"? At that point, don't most sellers know what they have into the coin or check on it at that point (I don't sell often, and am not a dealer, so I am just speculating here....based on what I do or would do....please correct me if you are a dealer at that assumption is incorrect). >>
I would suspect if the business is big enough, some of the employees very likely may not be "coin people" and only understand what's listed on the website or the label on the holder. Of course the seller should make every effort to avoid such errors, but really- is it reasonable to expect that they won't happen anyway? Another scenario...
You want to liquidate your collection and decide to set up at a show. Your wife comes along to help you. While you're on a bathroom break, she sells a coin out of your case marked $1,500- one you actually intended to price at $15,000. Once you get back from the can, she tells you about the sale. Of course you're upset, but then, she points out the guy she sold the coin to across the aisle. What do you do? >>
It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee?
In your situation, my wife and I would be having a few words first, before any other action
Also, again, a lot of how things are handled is in how people are approached.....I wonder how, if the story is true, the SB rep approached the situation??? buyer
Added:
In your situation, I think you would be hardpressed to realistically be able to try to pull legalities out. Your wife was your representative. You gave her rights to sell the coins. You priced them. Buyer paid you. Deal was made. Coin is out of your hands and in the buyer's hands. And, haven't many people said that once the goods are shipped, they are the responsibility of the buyer and not the seller?
Again, I know what I would do, but I really don't see anyone holding any responsibility to the seller here. And, I really disagree with hanging up on people, even if frustrated. State you will cal back again after discussing it internally. Hang up on me or my wife, and you really won't be getting what you want.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not?
<< <i>I wonder how, if the story is true, the SB rep approached the situation??? >>
Don't know, but based on the auction listing, I'd sure like to hear the other side of the story before jumping to conclusions.
<< <i>
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not? >>
I'll answer it. I'd marry smarter the next time. And if I were SB, I'd be disciplining whoever priced the coin.
<< <i>
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not? >>
Im not a coin dealer , i dont go to shows , i dont have a wife ...so...have you no answer to your own question ? I dont have all night for your deflections. If i sold a coin too cheap , more fool me , and i move on.
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
Coin in question: 1909-O 50c
MS 63 - $2350
MS64 - $3000
MS64+ - $3300
MS65 - $4500
MS65+ - $5500
MS66 - $10,500
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)?
Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
Well you used the wrong date to start with it was a 1900 O and PCGS pice guide has it at $14,500 at MS65
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>I'll answer it. I'd marry smarter the next time. >>
That doesn't really answer it. But you knew that.
<< <i>And if I were SB, I'd be disciplining whoever priced the coin. >>
I would imagine the topic was discussed.
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
Coin in question: 1909-O 50c
MS 63 - $2350
MS64 - $3000
MS64+ - $3300
MS65 - $4500
MS65+ - $5500
MS66 - $10,500
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)?
Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
Coin in question is a 1900-O not 1909-O.
It guides at: $14,500 in 65
<< <i>
<< <i>So, I did my own research on the price guide value.....I used PCGS guide even though it is in NGC plastic (I don't know if that series is generally higher or lower in NGC plastic).
Coin in question: 1909-O 50c
MS 63 - $2350
MS64 - $3000
MS64+ - $3300
MS65 - $4500
MS65+ - $5500
MS66 - $10,500
So, again, I don't do this series, but you guys tell me if it is a $15,000 coin from what you can tell of the photos (and maybe any on the SB site)?
Or, do you think it is more of a $4000 coin? $3500?
Come one guys? Tell me what the actual value is most likely to be.
Again, I question the ebay seller's story and, if true, then I question SB and what they have into the coin and the realistic value. >>
Well you used the wrong date to start with it was a 1900 O and PCGS pice guide has it at $14,500 at MS65 >>
Ah, thank you. Dry eyes and eye problems tonight, so I am not seeing that well. Appreciate the correct.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>I dont have all night for your deflections. >>
I asked a question, you quoted my question without answering it, asked a different question of your own, and *I'm* deflecting?
Interesting...
<< <i>
<< <i>I dont have all night for your deflections. >>
I asked a question, you quoted my question without answering it, asked a different question of your own, and *I'm* deflecting?
Interesting... >>
Which is more than i can say for your posts , later on spud
<< <i>I dont have all night for your deflections >>
And yet you keep replying.
Interesting...
<< <i>
<< <i>I'll answer it. I'd marry smarter the next time. >>
That doesn't really answer it. But you knew that.
<< <i>And if I were SB, I'd be disciplining whoever priced the coin. >>
I would imagine the topic was discussed.
OK, fair enough I'll answer it for real now.
What I did would depend on how hard it would be to eat the loss. It's relative, $15K to me may seem like $15 to a minimum wage worker. I too like the previous poster was raised to be accountable for my actions and pay for my mistakes. I would be embarrassed to try to back out of the deal and would endure severe pain to avoid that. If the mistake was going to cause real hardship financially I would probably try to undo it- but I mean real hardship and there is no way on God's green Earth $13,500 is going to impact SB at all. It's a cheap price to pay for integrity.
<< <i>Thank you for your thoughtful reply. And now, if you'll indulge me another question, do you think it's possible for someone to A) have integrity and
Yes it is possible.
<< <i>Yes it is possible. >>
I would think so, too. I don't think one party approaching the other after a "done deal" to confess to having made an error has any necessary implications involving integrity. And depending on the circumstances, I can see the other party either agreeing or not to the undoing of the deal, again, with no necessary integrity implications.
One size does not fit all.
That said, it might seem like a very logical mistake but I think I know what the guy is trying to say/do here. By making it sound like he, despite being a long-time collector, does not know te series he implies that he did not realize they coin was underpriced by a huge amount. I wonder how that will workout in a possible lawsuit.
Another point that will be important, regardless of error by SB is the question when a sale is completed as per the contract. Viewing it in black and white:
1) customer inquiries about a coin and decides to purchase it
2) invoice is sent to customer, who pays
3) coin is sent, express mail, with the error being is discovered while the coin is in transit
I would presume that a jury will conclude that despite the fact that the coin was shipped and paid for the collector that purchases a coin of this price would know of its true value...making it unlikely that he will win.
Question remains if ownership had already transferred, I wonder if that would have any influence.
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
<< <i>By making it sound like he, despite being a long-time collector, does not know te series... >>
This is a common theme here- the collector who is an expert who knows more than the dealers he disdains when that designation suits him and an innocent babe in the woods who needs protection from the dealer wolves when that's more in his favor.
A lot easier when you get to choose which side of the fence you're on, as the opportunity presents itself...
<< <i>Question remains if ownership had already transferred, I wonder if that would have any influence. >>
Who takes the loss if the item never shows up in the mail? I'll bet not the buyer.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value.
Tom
So, he falls in love with said coin and purchases it on April 30. Wife loves the coin as well. SB calls and tells buyer a mistake has been made and they offer him a $1,000 bucks for his time and expenses (whatever those are). Wife tells SB to go pound sand, she likes the coin and she is keeping it. Coin arrives May 3 and on May 7 the coin is for sale on feebay with red bleeding font all over it and the endless rant to boot. Am I missing something here? I thought he and wife loved the coin, so why are they in such a rush to sell it?
I must read more carefully next time! My speedreading is not working too well! LOL.
<< <i>So, he falls in love with said coin and purchases it on April 30. Wife loves the coin as well. SB calls and tells buyer a mistake has been made and they offer him a $1,000 bucks for his time and expenses (whatever those are). Wife tells SB to go pound sand, she likes the coin and she is keeping it. Coin arrives May 3 and on May 7 the coin is for sale on feebay with red bleeding font all over it and the endless rant to boot. Am I missing something here? I thought he and wife loved the coin, so why are they in such a rush to sell it? >>
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to notice that. Nothing to see here... move along, folks.
Is this to get him a higher bid? I would not think that this tactic would work for that.
No reasonable collector would think the seller was really wanting to sell this coin so cheap. Regardless of the price guide you look at, this is clearly a five-figure coin and any collector, regardless of their background, could easily figure that out in a couple of minutes.
That said, I'm sure many collectors here would also try to capitalize on such a mistake. But most of those collectors would also know it was likely a mistake from the start and if the seller later tried to correct the mistake in a timely manner, as seems to be the case here, I'm sure most collectors would happily just take the $1000 of free money and return the coin.
Unfortunately, if the buyer wants to continue to be a jerk about it, I'd bet he'll get to keep the coin or will get a better offer than $1000. It would probably cost more in attorneys' fees for the seller to try to recover the coin than was lost in this mistake and even if they were willing to spend the money to fight, winning such as case isn't a sure thing.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I would bet a lawyer would answer this question for free, just for fun ... if he lives in a small town ...
<< <i>I'm not sure of the state law of NY, or Louisiana, but I'll offer my two cents. First, the buyer is not a crook and did nothing illegal. If we are to believe it, Stacks misrepresented the coin. It is not fraud, either civil or criminal. If that is a sales receipt in the listing, then it is likely a contract, IMO, unless the fine print says otherwise, and I don't know if it does.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value. >>
Years ago, I cross shipped coins to two buyers. One of the coins was expensive and rare, the other what Laura would call "dreck". Fortunately, I was bailed out when the buyers agreed to ship the proper coins to each other, and accept a small 'gift' from me in exchange. For a few days, I was holding my breath, but all turned out okay in the long run.
Just curious, in the example of this Stacks-Bowers event, would a disclaimer in the seller's terms that says, "Title transfers to buyer at the time of mailing..." change any of the legalities above?
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
This person further goes on to explain how he is dying in an attempt to garner sympathy with the reader, another sad illustration of just how morally bankrupt this individual is. Not a person I would ever want to do business with.
<< <i>Do you think he might need the money he could get from selling this coin to buy medicine? Where morals are concerned, is everything necessarily black and white? Just throwin' it out there. >>
Interesting point, but I think in this case it is not the same as an unemployed steel worker stealing a loaf of bread and lunchmeat from the neighborhood quicky mart to feed his four kids. If he's buying coins I doubt he needs money for his meds.
John
John Maben
Pegasus Coin and Jewelry (Brick and Mortar)
ANA LM, PNG, APMD, FUN, Etc
800-381-2646
That statement LIE alone negates everything else they say and indicates they are LYING, probably about everything else including the dying part.
Remember the thread about the dealer at the Pttsburg ANA who's employee sold an MS65 Red 1909S VDB as an 09 VDB for $200???? at the Pttsburg ANA
If I recall correctly the overall response was quite opposite to the responses here and the difference in value percentage wise was quite higher!
Does make 1 think!
<< <i> The red font on that listing makes my eyes bleed. God! What an awful color and what a rant. >>
+1
In reply to why he is selling the coin after saying he loved it. Is it possible the 'sale'
was strictly made up so he could rant?
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass.
He pulled the listing and cancelled all the bids.
What are the odds he
A; had a change of heart
or
B; got a message with a cash offer from someone on ebay
(since it was all over before the thread started i'm not implying anyone in here did it)
C; It was fantasy in whole or in part was such an item even listed on stacks recently?
<< <i>He pulled the listing and cancelled all the bids.
What are the odds he
A; had a change of heart
or
B; got a message with a cash offer from someone on ebay
(since it was all over before the thread started i'm not implying anyone in here did it)
C; It was fantasy in whole or in part was such an item even listed on stacks recently? >>
Or, he was threatened with litigation that would be very costly to him even if he did prevail.
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm not sure of the state law of NY, or Louisiana, but I'll offer my two cents. First, the buyer is not a crook and did nothing illegal. If we are to believe it, Stacks misrepresented the coin. It is not fraud, either civil or criminal. If that is a sales receipt in the listing, then it is likely a contract, IMO, unless the fine print says otherwise, and I don't know if it does.
To have any recourse, Stacks would likely have to argue either that there was a mutual mistake as to what was purchased, or a unilateral mistake, and thus, no meeting of the minds. Since the buyer will likely argue that he was not mistaken as to what he purchased, Stacks best argument is unilateral mistake, that is, that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin, and that the buyer knew or should have known the coin's value. Theoretically, Stacks should win the argument. In addition, I haven't read their fine print but I would guess that Stacks does have some protective language to protect them for mistakes, and they could rely upon that also. I said theoretically, since to actually pursue this will cost several thousand dollars and there are no guarantees. Having pursued this type of relief on contracts unrelated to numismatics, I can tell you that prevailing on unilateral mistake claims is difficult because you have to prove what the other party knew (or should have known).
Now if the situation was reversed and the seller made the misrepresentation of a coin much more valuable or of a different type than it was, the buyer would have recourse and could also claim fraud, misrepresentation, etc. I have had this situation in a numismatic transaction related to a mis-described coin, and we resolved it through the ANA's ethics procedures. Had it not been resolved, we would have filed a fraud claim.
This situation is a more difficult because it appears that the coin was accurately described; it's just that the seller didn't price it right. Courts are less likely to look at price or consideration as part of a mistake claim. Still, I would think Stacks has recourse..costly, time consuming recourse, on a theory of unilateral mistake...that Stacks made a mistake in listing the coin and that the buyer know or should have known the true value. >>
Years ago, I cross shipped coins to two buyers. One of the coins was expensive and rare, the other what Laura would call "dreck". Fortunately, I was bailed out when the buyers agreed to ship the proper coins to each other, and accept a small 'gift' from me in exchange. For a few days, I was holding my breath, but all turned out okay in the long run.
Just curious, in the example of this Stacks-Bowers event, would a disclaimer in the seller's terms that says, "Title transfers to buyer at the time of mailing..." change any of the legalities above? >>
Your situation was one of mutual mistake, and it is very similar to a famous case, called the "Peerless" case involving shiploads of grain. If Title transfers at the time of mailing, that would benefit the buyer, but that is how I would view the matter in any event, absent language in Stack's agreements.
Tom
<< <i>
<< <i>Before the completion of the transaction the law is weighted in the merchants favor.
After the completion of the transaction the law is completely in the purchasers favor. >>
This, to me, is the mostly reasonably correct answer.
Anyone bother to look at S-B's site for terms on retail sales? There aren't any. Big mistake on their part. Ever notice the terms when purchasing from someplace like Amazon where they declare that the sale isn't a sale until the item(s) are shipped? They do it to protect themselves from pricing errors where ppl alerted from forums gang up to buy mis-priced items.
This is 100% on S-B. No policy and procedure for validating sales. No listed terms of sale. There was an offer and acceptance. Item was paid for and shipped. S-B screwed up and the guy would likely win any litigation which is why S-B offered the guy $1000. Personally, I find his actions morally repugnant but he is in the right. The law can be an ass. >>
I wanted to add, and in response to TDN's unilateral error doctrine approach, that once S-B shipped the item they were on flimsy ground asserting the elements of the unilateral error doctrine in winning a claim. To invoke that doctrine and prevail, the burden would be on S-B to prove 2 elements:
1. That enforcing the contract for sale was unconscionable, and 2. the other party had reason to know of the mistake or his fault caused the mistake.
I think they'd lose on #2, imho.
<< <i>
<< <i>It doesnt matter what "you" do , it only matters what the buyer does.Let me ask you , what would you do ? And what outcome would you forsee? >>
You don't want to answer the question? Why not? >>
I would opt to stand by my imaginary wife as I already do with my live-in lover of whom we raise three children together. We have to stand by one another in familial decisions and I would also like to believe in business decisions. It was her sale, my error, and the customer's delight to "ripping me". I would also suggest that her hair and nail fund be cut for the next 7 years. *grin*
Mostly said in jest, but IF it were to happen...
Now, TDN stated
<< <i>There is no Santa Claus in numismatics - sellers don't sell certified classic coins for 10 cents on the dollar. It was clearly a clerical error and he should have pointed it out to them in the beginning. >>
earlier in this thread, page 2 I believe.
I beg to differ, there IS a Santa Claus in numismatics because many dealers buy or attempt to buy coins for 10 cents on the dollar. Santa's restricts himself to one side of the table though.