Is it legal?

Another example for you, Chris... you go to Best Buy, pick out a 48" tv, take it home. You get home, set it up, the works. The next day, you get a call from Best Buy informing you they actually sold you a 50" TV, not a 48", so they want you to pay them the extra money. Should you pay the extra money because they screwed up?

Note that Best Buy would NEVER make a customer pay for their screw up... they realize that's on them, and they even have a budget for crap like that; it's called shrink.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ok...perhaps we have different opinions on what constitutes "coercive tactics". I was refering to...

...I can see where that might have made the Seller feel a bit uncomfortable...or "coerced".

As far as what constitutes a "hypotetical"...I think we're saying about the same thing. A hypothetical isn't fact, per se...it's a possible scenario which is temporarily treated as fact during the test period. That's the best we can do in a forum where the true facts are unknown; we're just testing the scenario as laid out by the OP.

EDIT: I mention "the Dealer" because I assumed the Associate was authorized to act on the Dealer's behalf. I carefully reread the OP and see that the Associate wasn't buying the coin on behalf of the Dealer, but for himself.

An interesting distinction, in that the coin store isn't involved; it is a private deal between the Associate and the Seller. Also, I don't see any mention in the OP about...

...there was talk about the Seller returning the money in "payments", but I don't see anything about the Owner taking money from the Associate's pay.

 

It's called shrinkage and it is due (primarily) to damage & theft. A mistake like that is written off as Goodwill.

Chris

 

I was watching Seinfeld the other night and got the impression that "shrinkage" was something else altogether.

 

I work in retail management, I think I know what it's all about.

Best Buy refers to it as shrink. I'd know, I used to work there. You still didn't answer the question.

That water sure is cold!

 

Now, you're stereotyping coin dealers to be nothing but shady, lowlife crooks. How many times have others posted on these very forums how they ripped someone for a coin that was worth a lot more. So, by your logic, everyone on these forums is a lowlife crook.
Sorry, but your "Hell no, but...." is just a copout, and throwing out a hypothetical about who inherits what is just skirting the real issues and the lack of facts for making a determination. Why doesn't everyone just admit that their motto is, "Cheat unto others lest ye be cheated.

Chris

 

Whoa, whoa, back it up, I didn't say all dealers. I said we've seen cases of that posted here. I am of the opinion that once money has traded hands and both parties have moved on (IE; customer has left the store) that's it, it's done. The lone exception would be if there is some kind of a policy that states either party has x amount of time to pull out of the agreement, and that doesn't appear to be the case here.

If you feel so strongly about this matter, can you find legal precedent for someone being charged with a crime or successfully being sued for selling a counterfeit item to a knowledgeable party, where the seller did not realize said item was counterfeit? I don't think you can. Prove me wrong.

 

Interesting post. The OP asked a legal question and most of the replies have to do with morals. lol. In my opinion the customer has no legal responsibility to return the money. Whether or not he has a moral obligation is another topic altogether.

Wouldn't it be nice to erase all our mistakes by demanding all the parties involved fix it for us?

 

Man, that would be awesome! Unfortunately, I have to take responsibility when I jack up... darn!

 

I worked in retail management back in the 60's, and the terms haven't changed. Shrink is the loss of profit from shrinkage. Shrinkage is the loss of product between the manufacturer to point of sale. The majority of shrinkage, about 45%, is due to employee theft and shoplifting represents about 35%. Yes, incorrect pricing, is part of shrinkage, but for accounting purposes, it is written off as Goodwill.

If you're referring to the fact that I did not answer your hypothetical question, it is because you choose to speculate in fantasy scenarios instead of considering getting the facts straight and making a determination upon those facts.

Chris

 

The dealer is unable to demonstrate that the coin he calls a fake is in fact the one the seller sold him. The chain of custody is indeterminate, and the possibility of fraud on the dealer's part cannot be excluded. For that matter, the "agent" may have kept the coin, and is now the one trying to stick his boss with a substituted fake.

The seller has no legal obligation to return the money and get in exchange a coin that cannot be shown to be the one he sold. Legally, it's pretty much that simple.

 

You evidently missed reviewing my replies.

What I find amusing , is how folks easily become confused between Fact and Fiction and add all the hypothetical"s implied or not.
. A statement of the facts was presented , albeit second hand information , but that is what we were asked to opine upon.

 

You sound like a lawyer. But yeah, basically this is what I said.

 

No, you didn't say "all dealers", you just said the "vast majority".

There you go again! Making the assumption that the associate is knowledgeable.

I don't have to prove anything. You've only proven that you have a warped sense of values toward humanity. I'm done!

Chris

 

...and opine we must!

Btw...I edited an earlier post, but it may not have been noticed. I reread the OP and noticed that the Associate wasn't buying the coin on behalf of the Dealer; the purchase was a private purchase between the Associate and the Seller...an important distinction; takes the Dealer completely out of the discussion.

 

First, if you read the circumstances surround the "vast majority" comment, you'd see it has nothing to do with them intentionally and knowingly ripping people off... I said if they discovered a new, super-rare variety in the batch and then sold it for a huge amount, would they track down the person they bought it off and give them a portion?

Second, why would you let someone work at a coin dealer and authorize them to buy coins, let alone a nearly $1000 coin, if they weren't knowledgeable?

Third, my sense of values is not warped. I think that's your reading comprehension and common sense that's warped. I don't want to start tossing out personal insults, but if you want to, I'll go toe-to-toe with you.

 

No i read them all. I happen to agree with you. I did say most not all of the replies. Yes its easy to ignore what was presented and insert our own interpretation and totally ignore the presented facts. That by the way is the reason a large majority of pro se litigants lose their court battles. Just thought id throw that in.

 

Lots of counterfeits are out there in the marketplace, and I can only hope I don't buy a counterfeit, especially from a dealer. You know, dealers sometimes can't tell, especially when it's from China (the best of the best of counterfeiters)

However, I wouldn't just go ahead and offer a huge sum for a coin that is rare and prone to counterfeits

 

Who said the Chinese were the "best of the best of counterfeiters"? I will agree that their best counterfeits are very good (and getting better) but I would not rank them as the "best of the best". The Omega counterfeiter put out much better fakes than the Chinese. The vast majority of counterfeits produced by the Chinese are crude to moderate at best. They are VERY prolific though. (In other words, when it comes to counterfeit coins the Chinese are more into QUANTITY than QUALITY.)

 

NOT REALLY .
That even adds further liability to the DEALER . Any employee of a business of this nature is considered an " Agent " of the Dealer and must be Bonded as such . Regardless of what the intent of that employee was , he was legally acting as the " Agent " , on behalf of the Dealer . Whatever private desires or dealings they have between themselves ( Dealer & Employee ) , is another and totally separate issue. No matter , because the entire question of legal obligation to refund monies, is without legal merit. I wonder who's monies the employee used to pay this Seller. Sounds quite curious. An individuals Moral beliefs or dilemma is something completely aside from the " legally Obligated " issue .