Is it legal?

+1

I believe many crimes are comitted without intent. A few years ago here in Las Vegas a young woman met a guy in one of the clubs. He had rented a Corvette and they went for a drive. She asked to drive the car and he allowed her to. She struck a pickup truck and killed the occupants.

Just an example of the crime of vehicular manslaughter of which she was convicted and sentenced to 25 years, I believe, for something she never had intent to do. All she wanted was a fun Vegas weekend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's not as bad as some of the stuff the Republicans do, like the current speaker of the house... look into the alternate engine program.

Anyways, I know this isn't the place for politics, but let's just say that it's sufficient to assume both parties are corrupt as hell.

 

You've got that right!

Chris

 

However, in that case the defendant was also a coin dealer. If the seller had no experience in coins it may have made a big difference.

In the case cited, both parties implicitly agreed that the coin was genuine. In the matter of Kassidy's example, there doesn't seem to be any such agreement, because the seller had no experience in the issues and the buyer made no discussion points; they just bought the coin.

Also, in the lower court the defendant contended the coin was switched, but the court found otherwise. We don't know what the court would find in the case at hand.

 

and a Republican wouldn't even bother having it authenticated and go to Tahiti with taxpayer money anyway.

 

The coin dealer did it to himself. The person who took the coin in had no idea if it was real or not... was looking for an appraisal because they heard that it MAY be valuable. The coin dealer looked at the coin then in their mind determined it to be real and paid for it as a real coin. The coin dealer was probably enlightened later by someone who is knowledgeable that the coin was bogus... or may be trying to pull a switcheroo.

Buyer beware doesn't apply to dealers too?

 

No mistake at all. Explain to me how a professional in the business of buying and selling collectible coins can value a coin without first authenticating it? The determination of value, by definition, is appraisal. Generally, a part of appraisal is authentication, not just valuation. In order to give a truthful estimation of the value the coin would first have to be authenticated, then valuation research would need to be conducted. Desirability of the coin would then have to be determined (what we generally call "grading"), and finally, the estimation/value/worth can be told.

Thus, to answer the question: "What is it worth?"; the dealer (or "associate") must first determine if the coin is real or not. Then, as the "associate" did, Fair Market research must be conducted ("The associate then preceded to look said coin up in a book.") to determine a range for a Fair Market Value. The "associate" must have then concluded a grade, as the OP states: "He then stated to my coworker that he would give my coworker $850 for the coin."

This is the appraisal process, and no part of it may be lacking unless both parties preclude to agree upon any such "facts" as to the coin's authenticity, Fair Market valuation method, or grade.

The fact that the OP stated: "My coworker know nothing about coins just for the record."; shows that the co-worker was in no position to be agreeing to any of the aforementioned preclusions. The fact that the OP at no time shows the co-worker admitting authenticity, objecting to the use of said "book" as a valuation method, or debating the grade of the coin (in fact, the "coworker was stunned" by the amount offered), means that the "associate" is fully responsible for his determination of the coin appraisal (or "judgment of worth") when the coworker (FACT: he is not a seller and does not have the intent to sell at this point) asked: "What is it worth?"

Negligence is another common tort term meaning a violation of a duty to meet an applicable standard of care.

These terms are independent of the medical profession. They apply to any profession where legal material "facts" may need to be established including numismatics. Anybody answering the question: "What is it worth?"; in a professional capacity would do good to know and understand these terms.

 

You just proved the point, did the drunk driver intend to drive the vehicle while drunk or did someone put a gun to his head and force him to drive? Did the crack smokers intend to smoke that crack or were they tied up and forced to smoke it? Same thing with the post below about the girl charged with manslaughter, what law did she break that caused the wreck? By your logic a person shooting at a passing train that kills someone couldn't be prosecuted for murder because they weren't aiming at a particular person. google "mens rea" with applications to criminal law if you want to learn more.

Criminal law has attempted to clarify the intent requirement by creating the concepts of "specific intent" and "general intent." Specific Intent refers to a particular state of mind that seeks to accomplish the precise act that the law prohibits—for example, a specific intent to commit rape. Sometimes it means an intent to do something beyond that which is done, such as assault with intent to commit rape. The prosecution must show that the defendant purposely or knowingly committed the crime at issue.
General intent refers to the intent to do that which the law prohibits. It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended the precise harm or the precise result that occurred. Thus, in most states, a defendant who kills a person with a gun while intoxicated, to the extent that the defendant is not aware of having a gun, will be guilty of second-degree murder. The law will infer that the defendant had a general intent to kill.

 

a.) There are 2 big exceptions to your "mens rea". Go look them up. I did. Taking you example then, a person texting in a state where it is legal is guilty of nothing when he/she hits another car/person. There were no intentions to do any harm. There was nothing even illegal. Good luck
b.) Just what part of my logic says "a person shooting at a passing train" is not guilty. I say he is guilty regardless of his intent. It is you logic that says he is innocent unless he intends to kill.

 

First off...I can't believe this thread has generated sixteen (16) pages in four (4) short days!! :T$:

Secondly...when folks start quoting latin legal terms (mens rea)...we just entered the Twilight Zone! :too-cool-for:

 

I really thought after everyone read the court ruling that was cited that it would be sufficient to make you realize that the seller should return the money, but I can see that some of you are trying to make excuses which are not even facts as they have been related to us. It's very disappointing to think that some of you would stoop that low.

By the way, I did get in touch with the legal counsel for the ANA, and he told me that when a coin that is sold is subsequently determined to be counterfeit, that either party can rescind the transaction. I'm sure that this won't make any difference to some of you. You'll just come up with another excuse.

Chris

 

Chris, the court case cited is "apples 'n oranges". First off, it's an "appeal" case...meaning, a previous court found in favor of the defendant. Secondly, the only reason the case was overturned, was because the seller was also a coin dealer representing the coin as genuine...not the case here.

I've said all along that (imho) the Seller has an ethical (not legal) obligation to look at the coin and, if there's indisputable proof that this is the same coin sold, he should return the money.

 

There is always some level of intent even in reckless activity which is what you described in the texting situation, a decision was made that may endanger others, the person made a decision to continue the activity that could endanger others. So no, nothing I said could be interpreted as that person did nothing wrong, and nothing could be construed to say there was no intent, which was the issue we were talking about. Crime requires intent. If no intent was found there are still crimes of liability which may apply so still, doesn't mean they aren't "guilty" or at least "liable". Don't believe me? Go pay a criminal defense attorney for an hour of his time to find out that crimes require some degree of intent. I had a very similar discussion about a year ago with a friend of mine that happens to be a top criminal defense attorney in Texas. I was making the same arguments you were. Now I know better.

 

Chris not to keep beating a dead horse, but here is a quote from the very case you are citing, the last lines being the most important:

"However, for the stated rule to apply, the parties must be conscious that the pertinent fact may not be true and make their agreement at the risk of that possibility. 17 Am. Jur.2d, Contracts, § 145 at 492. In this case both parties were certain that the coin was genuine. They so testified. Plaintiff's principal thought so after his inspection, and defendant would not have paid nearly $450 for it otherwise. A different case would be presented if the seller were uncertain either of the genuineness of the coin or of its value if genuine, and had accepted the expert buyer's judgment on these matters."

 

I just wanted to point out that until my previous post I didn't take the time to read the article, and also that once I found the above paragraph (about 7 down from the top) I didn't read any further.

 

Sorry, bad joke about Republicans in airports. Poor taste, so I blocked it out. I get caught in the conversation sometimes and forget that we have a very youthful and enthusiastic audience.

 

You seem to want to gloss over the very real possibility that the allegedly counterfeit coin is not the same coin the OP's coworker presented to the coin shop associate. It could have been switched out by the associate, the dealer, or both?

A quarter or more of the posters in this thread have alluded to the belief, earned or otherwise, that coin dealers are as likely to cheat you as not. Don't assume that this matter must involve the honest dealer, and therefore, the seller should "do the right thing."

In this matter, the right thing is to maintain the status quo. For now the seller should not give the money back, and the dealer should not get rid of the coin.

If the dealer truly feels he is in the right, then he should get the courts involved. The bullying and extortion is not the proper remedy, and I am glad to hear that it has stopped.

The court may hear fact testimony, and if so, they will determine who is telling the truth. Did the dealer or his associate pull the old "switcheroo" as so many here suspect? Did the seller know the coin was counterfeit, as you suspect?

The court may also decide the matter on the law of the jurisdiction. You have cited a case. Not sure if it is the same jurisdiction, and it sounds like some others interpret the case law differently from you. Regardless, it is up to that court to interpret, not you. As the lawyers on this site will tell you, given enough latitude, courts can go either way on both the facts or the law.

 

I'd like to thank you for stating the fact that my co-worker was NOT the seller until after the apprasial took place. I think that's important.

And not to add fuel to the fire but my co-worker showed me a business card from the coin shop (I didnt get the name of the shop) and that the associate wrote $850 on the card and then what type of coin it was. I am not sure if this is evidence that they had a legal transaction or if it's just writing on a business card.

 

You're telling me! I was like astonished that it produced even 3 pages, let alone 16!

The political and latin terms are a bit much but whatever floats peoples boats.

 

They aren't excuses. Some of them are opinions and some are facts. Some might even be law.