Is it legal?

Has anyone even wondered at where the coin came from?? I mean, first it was just a coin from circulation, and then much later it was given to the 'fiance' (who by the way, should be the one most concerned, not a co-worker who talks to the guy once or twice every two weeks..) by her grandfather, and, oops, forgot to say he kept it in a glass case.. I wonder who is kidding whom in all of this. Seems to me, take it all up with a good lawyer, or better yet, stay out of it and let the guy and his gal figure it out. Doesn't really fit CoinTalk, but rather, law talk. Sorry, kassidy, but what are YOU really looking for? Points with the guy? Good luck with that!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As it applies in this case with the coworker, since he knows absolutely nothing about coins, do you think he would be in a position to say that the coin was not the same one? Besides, chain of custody applies in criminal cases and it is the responsibility of the prosecution to ensure that the chain of custody has been preserved to prevent the evidence from being tainted. This is a civil matter. A different set of rules apply, and the coworker would have to perjure himself to dispute whether the coin is the same one in question.

The appellate decision makes perfect sense, and it was based, in part, on the concept of "mutual mistake". It is irrelevant that both of the parties were dealers. Both had assumed that the coin was authentic. In the case concerning the coworker, both he and the "Associate" at the coin shop (tacitly) assumed the coin was authentic. Refund the money! Case closed!

What galls me is that the people here who have given bad advice won't admit it, and they keep conjuring up scenarios that have absolutely no bearing on the case. It's too bad that Kassidy89 wasn't seeking the truth instead of hearing only what he wanted.

Chris

 

Obviously you don't understand how law school classes work. If there were only one answer, classes would be boring. :rollling:

Similar to arguing a NJ case in a Washington state matter, the position you advocate in a generic class discussion doesn't mean squat to your final grade. :thumb:

 

Business ethics and contract law are two entirely different things.

Chris

 

Okay! I'll admit I exaggerated a bit. They would have failed a pop quiz!

Chris

 

You keep emphasizing that aspect of the decision, and keep ignoring this part:

Why do you continue to maintain that the OP's story is not "a different case", given that it clearly fits this caveat in the legal decision that you keep quoting?

 

Based on the information we were given, the coworker only took the coin to the shop to find out what it was worth. It has not been established that he sought to have it authenticated.

Chris

 

I don't follow. Again, the quote said:

Maybe this means that "a different case would be presented" only if the seller were uncertain of value or genuineness (or both), but sought and accepted the buyer's judgment on value AND genuineness -- but I think that's over-parsing it.

 

​

The key phrase is in bold text: "A different case would be presented if the seller were uncertain of the genuineness of the coin or of its value if genuine, and had accepted the expert buyer's judgment on these matters."

1. It hasn't been established that the coworker questioned the authenticity of the coin.

2. It hasn't been established that the "Associate" is an expert in authentication.

Chris​

 

Guys, the problem isn't what is moral or ethical. It got basic when the co-worker sold the coin because he needed money, then spent it. A lot of us are in a financial position where we could take the $850 back to the dealer and trust that he didn't switch a real for a fake on us.

I don't think Kassie's co-worker can do that. I bet he thought he had a windfall, and had some things that he really needed the extra money for. So I imagine he spent a good part of it right away. Been there, done that. We all have. Why else sell our $700 gold for $350, etc.

I am sure that the person who works with Kassie is as moral and ethical as everyone here, maybe even moreso. But is now in a situation, not of his making that has brought him nothing but stress. I mean, what he thought was a decent deal (getting 1/2 the FV for an old coin) resulting in threats from the buyer and all kinds of grief. No wonder so many people distrust coin dealers.

This is a no win situation for both parties. I think the dealer should suck it up and take his lumps just like a man. Education is costly and he paid tuition at the school of hard knocks. After all, he examined the item made an offer to buy. Then purchased it. When you screw it up, it can cost ya. IMHO

gary

 

Chris,

Sorry, I borrowed "chain of custody" from a previous post. But stand by my earliest post that since the item was not identifiable, I do not know how recovery is possible. As others have said, remove a coin from the slab which identifies it, lose the identity. I believed then and do now that once a raw coin has changed hands and both parties are no longer in view of it, identity is lost. Frankly, I have know idea how to recover a loss for something you cannot prove the identity of. But, the only "law school" I ever attended had bars on the window.

gary

 

Sorry Chris...but I gotta throw the BS flag on that one. The first time you said it, I thought you were a Democrat because that's their type of myopic reasoning.

How on earth can anyone assign value (to anything), if they don't first establish authenticity? :scratch:

Wouldn't you agree that the value of a counterfeit is somewhat different than the value of an authentic piece?

 

You're just one of the many here who are making an assumption about the authentication and the supposed knowledge of the "Associate" at the shop. Neither of these has been established.

I don't care if you call me a Democrat, Republican, right-winger or radical, just don't call me late for dinner.

Chris

 

Please show me anywhere in Kassidy89's comments that his coworker intended to have the coin authenticated? Be realistic! If a case like this were to go to trial, that fact would have to be established. It hasn't here.

Chris

 

It's a win-win situation for the shop owner according to Chris. If he's wrong? Just demand his money back. If he's right? Double or triple his money. Where is the shop's responsibility? Apparently they have none and can do whatever they please impunity.

That's not justice. The shop has to take responsbility for making a mistake, else they're living in a risk-free world. Just socialize the losses and privatize the gains.

 

How do you figure that it is a win/win situation for the coin shop? They're out $850 and have a fake coin. Do you think it's justice that the seller can pocket $850 for selling a fake coin? If you had bought a fake coin on eBay, you would be screaming bloody murder. Get real! You can't have it both ways.

Chris

 

Perhaps, they followed the Wall St. bail out President Bush started ?

 

There has been something along these lines decided by the courts in the 1800's. Most of us know about the Racketeer Liberty Head V Nickel. Joshua Tatum was found not guilty for misrepresenting the gold plated V nickel because he was mute. Therefore he never claimed the gold plated nickel was a 5 dollar gold piece, everyone that accepted the coin assumed it was a 5 dollar gold coin and gave him the change due.

Caveat emptor applies in this situation, because the seller was not an "expert" on coins there was no fraud. Unless it can be proved that the seller did in fact know that the coin was a forgery, there were no laws broken. If the rolls were reversed you would have a supposed "expert", the coin dealer, misrepresenting the coin and would most likely be forced to return the money. There are two sets of rules for an expert and a laymen, the coin dealer needs to write this off as lesson learned.

 

I don't know, Doug. I'm beginning to think they wouldn't believe it if the Pope told them.

Chris