Is it legal?

See what I mean, Doug?

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Except that there never was any such case or decision.

 

Agreed! I posted the :dead-horse: back on Post #129...but not for the same reasons...

No argument here...if that's what we're talking about. As with any hypothetical, we're asked to render a decision on the statement of events as though they have been proven to be true.

In this case, as laid out by the OP, her Co-Worker wasn't trying to sell the coin; he simply asked the Coin Store Associate if he could place a value on it. The Associate appraised the coin (in his own mind) and offered to buy it for $850...establishing the value.

Since the coin didn't belong to him, the Co-Worker (Seller) discussed the matter with his fiance (the coin's owner), then returned to accept the offer. At no point in the OP's "statement of events" did the Seller ever present the coin as "genuine".

I suppose an argument can be made that once the Associate told the Seller the coin was genuine, the Seller was presenting the coin as genuine...but that was based solely on the opinion of the Associate, not on any independent knowledge of the Seller.

​

Again, true...assuming it can be established the coin is the same coin sold...such as would be the case of a coin in a PCGS/NGC holder. You see it all the time...a person buys a genuine (raw) coin on eBay, then files a dispute claiming the coin is "not as described". They simply return a different coin and the Seller gets screwed. Many Sellers now seal raw coins in such a way as to void the Seller's return policy should the seal be broken.

I stated earlier that the Seller has an "ethical/moral" obligation to view the coin and, if the Seller believes the coin to be the original, is obligated to return the money..."no ifs, ands buts or maybes", but that's the only point that can't be debated. :thumb:

LOL...unless, or course, you choose to close the thread!

 

It's the store's mistake.

 

In the case I linked to, the appellate court stated in dicta: "The foregoing conclusions make it unnecessary for us to discuss plaintiff's alternative contention that the contract was "unenforceable" because it constituted an illegal contract to purchase a counterfeit coin. We regard that position as devoid of merit."

There have been enough misstatements of law made in this thread already. Suffice it to say that no attorney I know would offer an opinion based on a second-hand account of such an incident. I suggest that's a wise course of action.

 

You said it yourself earlier...

...so what would you do if someone handed you a coin and asked what it was worth?

If it were me (assuming I have the requisite skills), I would evaluate the issue and grade, then quote a value based explicitly on "condition of authenticity". I would never offer to buy the coin had I not (in my own mind) made a determination of authenticity. Therefore I extrapolate from the OPs statement of events that the Associate authenticated the coin (at least in his own mind).

Yes, you are correct, the coworker didn't ask for an appraisal; he simply asked what the coin was worth...but isn't that what an appraisal is? I believe the Associate even went a step further by providing an implicit statement of authenticity when he offered to buy the coin.

...and I apologize for suggesting you may be a Democrat. You obviously have the thick skin of an elephant! :bow:

 

You're confusing the word appraisal with authentication. Two different things. It doesn't matter what you would do. This is not a negligence case.

Just because the "Associate" was dumb enough to buy a fake coin, does not imply anything with regard to authentication. Look how many dummies have posted fake coins on these forums in only the 10 months I've been here. Are we to assume that those coins should be considered authentic just because they bought them?

If you won't believe the Pope, how about the Dalai Lama?

Chris

 

Most coin shops I frequent give a receipt when they buy coins, here in California I think it may even be a law. In California you have to be registered with the Board of Equalization, now I know this story was somewhere other than California but I take it all with a grain/ box of salt. I'm just saying!!

 

I really don't think I'm confusing the two words. The Co-Worker (Seller) simply asked what the coin was "worth"...in other words, he asked for a verbal "appraisal". I contend that, implicit in the appraisal process, is "authentication"...two different words with two different meanings (as you have rigorously pointed out).

The Associate could have said, "In my opinion, assuming the coin is genuine, it's wholesale value would be $850.". That would have been a conditional "appraisal" without authentication...but that's not what the Associate said, is it?

The Associate said, "I will give you $850 for that coin.". That statement implies that he not only "appraised" the coin, but (in his own mind) "authenticated" the coin. Why else would he be willing to pay $850 for it if he didn't believe the coin to be authentic? ...not based on the Seller's representation of the genuiness of the coin, but rather on his own inestimable numismatic prowess.

Lemme guess...I didn't even make a dent, did I? :headbang::headbang::headbang:

 

Nope! But, I guess you're pretty good at reading the "Associate's" mind. If, to your satisfaction, he had (tacitly) implied that the coin was authentic, then why was he frantically trying to contact the seller, i.e., the repeated phone calls? I'll tell you why! Because when the boss examined the coin, he hit the ceiling and probably told the "Associate" that he would take it out of his pay.

Would you become a believer if we had the Pope, the Dalai Lama and Castro all attest to the applicability of the case law in person?

Chris

 

LOL...We're not talking about what happened AFTER the deal was consumated, we're talking about what the Associate "believed" at the time the deal was consumated....not based on any misrepresentation by the Co-Worker (Seller), but based on what he believed as an experienced Numismatist.

You are correct about one thing...I can't read the Associate's mind. However, if you followed the court case that was cited on (or about) page #7, you'll see that (in that case) the court accepted the fact that the one dealer originally paid $450 for his coin as proof that he "believed" the coin to be authentic.

I'm simply applying the same logic here...why would the Associate pay $850 for a coin if he wasn't convinced of its authenticity?

It was the Associate's "belief" of the coin's authenticity that determined the "appraisal value" he gave to the Co-Worker (Seller). Even then, the Associate didn't stop at a mere appraisal, he jumped past the appraisal and made an offer to buy! The Associate was coinvinced of the coin's authenticity! ...evidenced by both his appraisal AND his offer to buy.

EDIT: I agree with Doug that it's unlawful to sell counterfeit coins (no ifs, ands, buts, or maybes). I'm only saying that once the deal was consumated and property changed hands, there has to be some way to determine the coin (that is now being called "counterfeit") is, in fact, the same coin that the Co-Worker sold. If that can be established, then the money MUST be returned. On that point, I think we all agree. If the Co-Worker is the only person that can make that determination, he has an ethical/moral obligation to render a truthful opinion.

 

Your logic is seriously flawed with fantasies that can't be supported in court. Your reference to the appellate case is incorrect. (By the way, the link is on page 10, post #190 - I know the location by heart because I've read it four times.). It states that both parties believed the coin to be genuine.

That "same coin" garbage is only a copout. The seller, knowing nothing about coins, would have to perjure himself to establish that. Besides, like I said before, do you really think that a dealer will keep a counterfeit coin handy in his inventory just for a situation like this? While we're on that subject, I'll bet he could prove this simply by making a complete inventory available to the court.

I really hate to have to do this, but in addition to the Pope, the Dalai Lama and Castro, we'll have to add your Mother to the group. She's the only one I know who can give you a good tongue-lashing and make you eat your words.

Chris

 

Okay. The associate thought one of two things:

1. The coin was authentic and worth paying $850.00 for.

or...

2. He didn't think it was authentic and decided to pay $850.00 for it anyway.

If you can see a third option, I'll be glad to listen.

 

Well, yeah...that's my point! In the OP's case, only one party knew/believed the coin was genuine...that's why the OP's Co-Worker went into the shop in the first place...to find out if the coin was genuine! I know, I know...he wanted to know the value...(same thing). Let's not do this dance again! :goofer:

...and you're right, it's unlikely the Associate switched the coin, but once the coin is out of the control of the original owner, there's no accounting of what may have happened to it. The coin could have been damaged or improperly cleaned by the Associate...who knows. If, as the Associate claims, his original appraisal was flawed, who's to say his new appraisal isn't similarly flawed.

It's really up to the OP's Co-Worker to examine the coin (or have it examined) to determine if the money should be repaid. If he testifies the coin is different or has been substanially altered since the close of the deal, what do you expect a court to do?

 

Option 3: The "Associate" was inexperienced where it came to authentication and didn't even give it any thought that it could be a fake.

Chris

 

Apparently, the Owner felt his Associate was experienced enough to purchase coins on the Owner's behalf.

 

This is a big crock of BS!

Neither one of them even considered the possibility that the coin was fake!

Neither one of them had the knowledge to know that it is a coin that was commonly altered and/or counterfeited!

The seller did not go into the store to learn if it was genuine. All he wanted to know was its value! It's not the same thing!

His appraisal was that he would buy it for $850. If it was flawed, maybe he paid him with counterfeit paper money!

Do you understand the difference between "appraisal" and "authentication"?

No wonder this world is going down the drain!

Chris

 

I suppose a little fairy told you that!

Chris

 

Nope...the OP did.

 

Whoa!! Somebody needs a nap...:binky: