How would you have handled this?

tewcd

Edited because it's not worth keeping my diatribe up. Thanks for the advice, guys!

LochNESS

I think the key detail here is that "at the heart of it he professed to be a coin dealer" ... meaning he willingly accepts responsibility for the coins. Some antique stores are not run by specialists in any collecting field. Many are specialists in furniture. Very few are knowledgable on coins. But this guy advertises himself as a coin dealer, so a counterfeit coin is simply unacceptible.

I believe under these circumstances I would have acted the same way!

edited to add: If the guy was a furniture dealer and knew nothing about coins, I would still have asked for a refund on the counterfeit, and spent a couple minutes educating him on the identifying features, but kept the real one. Most antique stores are consignment shops and the percentage of profit return (to the actual owners) diminishes over time as items sit on the shelf. What I'm saying is, the real coin probably has little to none financial ties to the fake coin and even though you bought them together, the prices aren't really linked in any way. Most likely.

coinkat

If it was a package deal, returning both was reasonable.

I would go back and continue to attempt to give them business- in part to show your goodwill and willingness to get past this incident. I would think your business would still be appreciated- you won't know unless you show up and if you get a cold shoulder, you can re-assess at that time.

wybrit

I know I would have done the same thing.

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>I decided to purchase both, for a combined total of $150.00. One coin was overpriced, but the rarer coin was under-priced, so I figured it evens out.

I got home, looked in my catalogs, and behold! The rarer coin was a definite counterfeit. >>

If it was the overpriced coin that was counterfeit, would you have insisted on returning the underpriced coin, too?

Aethelred

I think you handled it well.

tewcd

<< <i>

<< <i>I decided to purchase both, for a combined total of $150.00. One coin was overpriced, but the rarer coin was under-priced, so I figured it evens out.

I got home, looked in my catalogs, and behold! The rarer coin was a definite counterfeit. >>

If it was the overpriced coin that was counterfeit, would you have insisted on returning the underpriced coin, too? >>



No, but I guess my feelings to that effect are:

1) that's the penalty a seller should pay for selling a counterfeit, and

2) there would be a different price point rationale. I was going to buy the underpriced coin anyways. The low price point (along with the fact that I would have slabbed and sold the underpriced coin) allowed me to justify paying more for the overpriced coin, which was more of an impulse, sentimental buy.

So I see your point, but I think there's a different economic factor at play in the converse situation which substantially differentiates it from this one.

Aethelred

If I had unknowingly sold a counterfeit coin I would be bending over backwards to make the buyer happy and restore his goodwill.

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>that's the penalty a seller should pay for selling a counterfeit, >>

The penalty for selling a counterfeit is to make a refund for the counterfeit coin when it's brought to your attention.

<< <i>So I see your point, but I think there's a different economic factor at play in the converse situation which substantially differentiates it from this one. >>

I guess I see your point as figuring the proper thing to do regarding the non-counterfeit coin is based on whichever of the options is in your financial best interest.

Sorry, but I do not think you should insist on returning an overpriced coin along with the counterfeit if you'd not also return an underpriced one.

tewcd

I think you're trying to apply a flat rule for two situations that aren't logically the same: "A" is "purchase a real, genuine underpriced coin; "B" is purchase a real, genuine overpriced coin. Basic assumption is that the amount of over- and under-pricing is equal for both ($30.00)

Situation 1 (what actually happened): If and only if A, then B; If not A, then not B

Situation 2 (your hypothetical): If A, then B; If not A, then B

They're logically 2 different situations, and yours presumes presumes that "B" is something I would do anyways. I'm proposing that I wouldn't have bought B if A wasn't an option.

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>Situation 1 (what actually happened): If and only if A, then B; If not A, then not B.

I'm proposing that I wouldn't have bought B if A wasn't an option. >>

Did you tell the seller that you considered the two coins to be a package deal? Did he agree to that?

tewcd

In fact, at the time I did. I announced when purchasing that I thought the price on the Overpriced was too high. The seller informed me prices are firm, but said that the Underpriced was a very good coin for its price. I agreed, and said that I think the Underpriced coin gave me an excuse to buy both.

So yes, I stated my intention, but I wasn't given any sort of break to buy them together. Either way, I don't think it matters much. The fact is, he was in the wrong, had engaged (knowingly or unknowingly) in activity which is our hobby's greatest "sin", and I think I was entitled to undo the entire transaction.

mrpotatoheadd

Well, you asked for opinions and I gave you mine. Basically, it's not a deal unless both parties agree to it.

<< <i>The fact is, he was in the wrong, had engaged (knowingly or unknowingly) in activity which is our hobby's greatest "sin", >>

It appears he was willing to make it right.

<< <i>and I think I was entitled to undo the entire transaction. >>

I do understand that you think you were entitled.

Suppose Joe Blow buys something from an eBay seller whose terms say "No returns", but Joe expects that he can return something as long as he tells the seller that's what he's entitled to. Is the seller obligated to accept a return from Joe?

tewcd

Look, we're on two different wavelengths. Legally, you're right. I'll admit that all day long. I'm not concerned about that, because Seller and I agreed on a course of action in the end, and that course of action formed an agreement that supersedes the default rules for the purchase of good imposed by law in the absence of an agreement.

What I'm talking about is on a moral or ethical scale. I think morally it was not a dishonest thing to do to ask for a full refund and full exchange*. That's what I'm concerned about. As for the rest -- that's no issue. I practice law, and don't need a lesson in basic UCC rules.

EDIT: *Obviously, I'm not 100% certain, or otherwise I wouldn't be asking this question.

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>I think morally it was not a dishonest thing to do to ask for a full refund and full exchange*. >>

Asking and expecting to be entitled to are two different things.

<< <i>I practice law, and don't need a lesson in basic UCC rules. >>

Well, I guess that answers that.

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>If I had unknowingly sold a counterfeit coin I would be bending over backwards to make the buyer happy and restore his goodwill. >>



From the sellers point of view I would do the same.

If I was the buyer, especially if I wanted to continue doing business with the seller, I would keep the second coin. I would feel that the counterfeit was a miss on my part, as well, and the extra I paid on the second coin was my tuition.